Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush does it again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush does it again

    President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

    up next we won't be able to marry the dogs

    Official Sponsor of Marco Gonzales and the Productive Out!!!


    Said the Quangle Wangle Quee

  • #2
    WHAT??? Not marry dogs??? NOOOOOOOOOooooooooo...

    the Dog

    Dat's right!

    Official Lounge Dog
    Official Lounge sponsor of Bryce Salvador
    Official Lounge sponsor of Cardinalgirl

    Comment


    • #3
      I still say gays are playing right into Dubya's hands. Why wouldn't such a miserable failure of a president want something like this to be the defining issue in this election season?
      Damn these electric sex pants!

      26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

      Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dredbyrd@Feb 24 2004, 11:11 AM
        I still say gays are playing right into Dubya's hands. Why wouldn't such a miserable failure of a president want something like this to be the defining issue in this election season?
        Wouldn't that be the other way around? This could be the issue that swings moderates away from him. A well placed Civil Rights question in a debate or commerical could expose this as wrong minded. It could blow up, this may be a third rail issue like social security. I wonder what we would be like if Ike had proposed a similar amendment during the late 50's

        Official Sponsor of Marco Gonzales and the Productive Out!!!


        Said the Quangle Wangle Quee

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm afraid all this gay marriage talk will scare Bush's ultra-right wing "Christian Right" base so much that they will turn out in droves to protect marriage from the evil assault of the gays. It's not going to be about changing the mind of the swing voter - this election is going to be about getting your hardcore voter base out to vote.

          Isn't this EXACTLY what they did with the Flag Burning amendment years ago? Cook up some BS issue to preach about so you can distract people from the failures of the administration?
          2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trigfunctions@Feb 24 2004, 11:41 AM
            I'm afraid all this gay marriage talk will scare Bush's ultra-right wing "Christian Right" base so much that they will turn out in droves to protect marriage from the evil assault of the gays. It's not going to be about changing the mind of the swing voter - this election is going to be about getting your hardcore voter base out to vote.

            Isn't this EXACTLY what they did with the Flag Burning amendment years ago? Cook up some BS issue to preach about so you can distract people from the failures of the administration?
            trig, how cooked up is this. Haven't we already inacted a"defense of marriage" act.
            Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

            Comment


            • #7
              Evil assualt?

              Sounds about right.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jhanke+Feb 24 2004, 11:34 AM-->
                QUOTE(jhanke @ Feb 24 2004, 11:34 AM)

              • #9
                Lazy - here's article Five from the US constitution on how amendments are added:

                Article V

                The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
                That will NEVER EVER happen. No way would the Republicans ever be able to get 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states to pass this amendment. Ever. And the Republicans know that, but they are going to keep hammering at it and hammering at it to scare the heck out of the right-wing base to get them out to vote.
                2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Since when did the Constitution become a dictionary for the Bible?

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by BW23@Feb 24 2004, 11:43 AM
                    Evil assualt?

                    Sounds about right.
                    Yes, two people who love each other and want to make a lilfe-long comittment to take care of each other are evil.
                    2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Iowa_Card@Feb 24 2004, 11:48 AM
                      Since when did the Constitution become a dictionary for the Bible?
                      BRILLIANT!
                      2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The following is a transcript of the president's remarks:

                        BUSH: Good morning.

                        Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

                        The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

                        Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

                        In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

                        In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

                        A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

                        And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

                        After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

                        Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.

                        If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

                        The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

                        Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

                        Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

                        Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

                        Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

                        For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

                        An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

                        The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

                        Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

                        Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

                        Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

                        The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

                        America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

                        Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

                        We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

                        In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

                        Thank you very much
                        Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Yes, Bush is a uniter, not a divider.

                          What a douche.

                          people here want it both ways. They want Bush to be their guy but then when he adds to big govt, when he spends too much, they give him a free pass.
                          Dude. Can. Fly.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Trigfunctions+Feb 24 2004, 11:48 AM-->
                            QUOTE(Trigfunctions @ Feb 24 2004, 11:48 AM)
                          Working...
                          X