Friday, June 02, 2006

Bush proposes Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage

From the AP

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat _ Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska _ says he will vote for it.

I'm no fan of gay marriage, but I can not support this. This is coming from someone who voted for proposition 2 (because of my opposition to taxpayer funded domestic benefits) and supported the Defense of Marriage Act back in the 1990's.

The reason I do not support this is for two reasons.

1. It is not a good reason to amend the constitution. The constitution has only once forbid something. That was during prohibition. This is bad precident. The reason Bush supports the amendment is an attempt to get around activist judges. That's STILL not a good enough reason. I'd rather see activist judges removed from power. Impeach Jack Weinstein. Impeach Stephen Reinhardt. THAT'll send a message and restore the balance of power.

The only Constitutional Amendment I would support is one that allows states not to recognize marriage contracts that are in other states. That still leaves the decision to the states which gets to my next point.

2. Does everything need to be a FEDERAL law? One thing that has been unacceptable by Bush, Schumer, and most of all John McCain (by far the worst offender) - is that they have made a federal case out of everything. (Many) Conservatives had a fit at Mr. Clinton's overzealous gun grabbing ways and his environmental whacko (I'm NOT referring to conservationism which I support) policies from the federal level. By environmental whacko, I'm referring to his policy of re-introducing wolves out west and protecting them from ranchers - who are trying to protect their livestock. Conservatives were right to oppose this. Liberals are going to oppose this bill.

How about let's all be consistant here and have some less government for once.


Anonymous said...

Can you say pandering? This is nothing but a pathetic attempt to rally the troops and recapture magic that has long since faded. It is sad to see how far the mighty have fallen. Bush is done -stick a fork in him - and anything he does from this point forward will simply demonstrate how badly he squandered the opportunity he had to stand for something. Instead, he'll serve as the example of the figurehead leader of a group desperate for leadership who just didn't get it. I'm sure the litany will soon become, 'well, I never really was a big fan of Bush but......' and the revisionist history will soon flow. Face the facts folks, he was a failure and you put him in office.

Republican Michigander said...

I'd STILL rather have Bush than Al Gore or Hanoi John Kerry. Those two jokers are worse.

patrick Flynn said...

I find our president's timing a bit curious. He promised to keep this front and center for years and then seemed to forget for a while.

Having explicit language inserted into our constitution to solidify what the document has implied for 230 years is not growing government. If anything would complicate and subsequently grow government activity and intervention, it would be permitting the definition of marriage to vary from state to state. What a disaster that would be.

We're not talking about some trivial issue here. We're talking about natural law, the very basis and foundation of civilization.

Our Federal Constitution stating explicitly that marriage is a union of only one man and one woman is not forbidding anything in essence. It merely takes a ridiculous and socially disastrous notion and pushes it off the table.

But actually, you could say that the constitution does forbid quite a lot. Depends on just how you look at it. The First Amendment forbids a national religion and government regulation of assembly and media. The constitution forbids unlawful search and seizure, punishment without trial, seizure of firearms (it's supposed to forbid that), and so on.

We need the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment, and it would not be a moment too soon in its coming

RKG said...

I think Republican Michigander summed up just what the Republicans have to offer this country-"vote for us, the other guys are worse." Maybe they are worse, but I think it's a sad, sad day for America when the best you have to offer is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I simply refuse to support a party that offers no leadership and think we'd all be better off if we demanded more in order to earn the opportunity to hold elective office.

Anonymous said...

I dislike gay marriage just as much as most people, but there is a bigger principle involved here. I agree with Dan - the federal government should not be interfering in such matters.

This is clearly an attempt to regain support from the base after the disaster caused by the immigration issue. There is no other way to explain the timing on this. Unfortunately, a second bad policy does nothing to cancel out a bad policy on other issues.

Republicans are spending too much time looking at polls and not enough time doing what is right. They have forgotten the basic principles of the Republican pary - less government spending, lower taxes, and minimal federal government intervention in citizens lives. Ronald Reagan always tried to leave as much power as possible to state and local governments, but since that time this principle has been largely discarded.

It should be left up to individual states and cities to set their own rules. The federal government should stay out of this issue. Period.

Anonymous said...


In an attempt to thwart the spread of bird flu, President George W. Bush
has bombed the Canary Islands.

Turkey is next.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think that joke just flew over our heads.

Anonymous said...

I would agree that it shouldn't be a Constitutional Am. if it didn't effect all the states. What one state allows, the other states are supposed to support. For example, if I were underage in Michigan, but it were allowable in another state for me to get married, all I have to do is travel there, have the ceremony, and I'm married, even in Michigan. The ramifications are too broad here. Further, in societies where same-sex marriage has been legalized, it has served to tear at the very fabric of their society. Out-of-wedlock births and divorce rates skyrocket. Finally, it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution because it was unfathomable back then that society would condone this. Unfortunately, times have changed.

Kevins said...

Despite the unwarranted backhand insults at President Clinton, I agree with dan.
I support love and marriage and that the government has no right to tell you or me who I or you can or cannot marry. It’s as simple as that.
You know bush must be in bad shape to pander to the hate-filled wing nuts on the right.

Anonymous said...

No, Kevin S., that would be the hatefilled wing nuts on the left. You know, the Howard Dean's, the Al Gore's, the Pelosi's, Byrd's, and Murtha's of the world. You guys breed hateful nuts. If we could stomp out nutjobs, your party would be empty.

Kevins said...

Please explain to me, anonymous, how Gov. Howard Dean, Vice-President Al Gore, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Robert Byrd, and U.S. Rep. John Murtha (USMC Ret.) are “hate filled wing nuts?”

Also, explain to me why you do not believe in marriage, and why you think the government should choose your mate for you.

Jack Radke said...

Tim Walberg is beating his anti-gay marriage drum again as he enters a two-month showdown with congressman Joe Schwarz in the 7th District GOP primary Aug. 8.
This blogger, The Adrian Insider, has all the scoop...

Anonymous said...

Kevin S.

What are you talking about?, I believe in marriage. I don't believe you should redefine it to mean something other than one man and one woman. I don't think the government is trying to pick your mate, the government is trying to protect you from yourselves. Beasteology, NAMBLA, pedophilia, poligamy, come on Kevin, even you have to admit that there are all kinds of nut jobs out there trying to screw with our heritage and our common sense. No, you can sleep with a horse if you choose, or tickle a moose ass if you want to, but you just don't get to marry one and try to make it normal. Why do you think a man and a man can't make a baby? It isn't the law of nature and nature's God. If you choose a particular dangerous lifestyle, don't try to make yourself feel better by trying to make the rest of us stamp "approval" on it. If God wanted two women to be parents, he'd have made that possible. Now go do your thing but stop trying to make it make sense to the world. Deviant behavior is just that, deviant behavior.

Kevins said...

What I’m talking about, Anonymous is love and marriage between a person, a PERSON, you choose, It's that simple.

I’m not redefining anything, it’s the government that’s trying to define marriage, and I don’t need the government to “protect me from, myself.” Are you saying marriage is only for pro-creating and making a baby? There are plenty of couples out there who do not have children, and are biologically not able to have children. Does that mean they cannot be married? Just as there are gay couples raising happy, well-adjusted children.

I don’t call homosexual behavior deviant. There’s another so-called Christian group you can join that holds the same beliefs as you, they’re called the Westboro Baptist Church. Why do you assume that just because I support equal rights for all Americans that I’m gay? However, to be honest, you can continue to think any way you like.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is not illegal. There can be no law against marrying another person. It is a matter of civil rights and civil rights of all human beings will prevail.

Who cares what your church says? I am Episcopalian and my church marries gay couples. I am a Christian. Our God is a merciful God.