Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment?

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
All he's done here is demonstrate that this was never a principled position for him and that he is willing to exploit base prejudice to drum up votes. I see him as even more despicable now, if that is even possible.

Edit: apologies to polm, I didn't see your thread on this. :)


Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment

January 16, 2005

(Washington) President Bush said Sunday that he will not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post Bush said that he remains opposed to gay marriage but believes there aren't the votes in the Senate to ensure the amendment would be adopted.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

The change in position comes just days after Democrats called on the President to abandon his push for an amendment. (story)

A year ago, in his State of the Union Speech, Bush attacked "activist judges" like the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled gays could not be excluded from marriage.

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage," Bush told the joint session of Congress. (story)

But, in September, when the proposed amendment came to a vote, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed. (story) Even with greater numbers in both the House and the Senate it remains doubtful the amendment would pass.

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters last week called on President Bush to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that he wants the amendment approved. "We will come back and come back until this is passed." (story)

Republicans used same-sex marriage to their advantage in last November's election painting Sen. John Kerry as pro gay. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage but believes in granting rights to same-sex couples - a position that Bush also endorsed in an interview with ABC. (story)

Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do."

By dropping his push for a constitutional amendment Bush will likely incur the wrath of social conservatives within the GOP, but avoid a confrontation with Democrats when he needs their support in the Senate to confirm dozens of appointments.

©365Gay.com 2005
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
haha, and wasnt this a huuuuge part of his election agenda, and ofcorse alot of people gave him their support because of that

damn politicians and their never ending list of unfullfilled election promises
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
i don't know whether to be happy that he isn't pushing this, or mad at all the homophobes for getting this guy in office
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
Jebediah Bush vs. John McCain for the republican ticket. and i wouldn't be surprised if the swift boat veterans for truth start attacking mccain again. who knows, jebby might even run on the same gay marriage amendment ticket, and i'm sure all the homophobes will vote for him because of it
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
#1: Jeb Bush will not run for president. Where are you getting this idea?

#2: what a flip-flopper (GW).
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
#1: Jeb Bush will not run for president. Where are you getting this idea?

#2: what a flip-flopper (GW).

from his grooming. they didn't send him to indonesia for vacation!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: loki8481
#1: Jeb Bush will not run for president. Where are you getting this idea?

#2: what a flip-flopper (GW).

from his grooming. they didn't send him to indonesia for vacation!

but what about the part where he said that he himself said that he was absolutely not running for president, ever?
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
didn't bush say he was going to propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay sex marriage? i believe it was one of the issues he was campaigning on


my point is that you can't really trust what these guys say. just don't be surprised if he does in fact run. i think jeb said that right now, he's not looking to run, but he never discounted ever running
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
i support his move, aslong as doma is constitutional then we don't need an amendment to protect the people's rights.
 

joshw10

Senior member
Feb 16, 2004
806
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i support his move, aslong as doma is constitutional then we don't need an amendment to protect the people's rights.

because keeping gays from marriage is "protecting your rights" .... :roll:

 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: joshw10
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i support his move, aslong as doma is constitutional then we don't need an amendment to protect the people's rights.

because keeping gays from marriage is "protecting your rights" .... :roll:
Because a society has a right to determine, by way of legislature proper, what is and isn't going to be condoned.

Gay hetero 2people 20, you're welcome to "love" whoever you want, but you don't have a natural right to have the government extend it's benefits to you just because your "love" causes you to engage in legal sexual activity.

you may want to extend those benefits to gays who live together, but that's a completely different discussion from weather or not we have federal benefits extended to those who engage in cohabitation by way of tyrannical judges.

I?m sorry that you feel your arguments and views are so ill developed that you choose to fail the basic test of argumentative charity.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,822
4,918
136
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i support his move, aslong as doma is constitutional then we don't need an amendment to deny the people's rights.





fixed.

 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
It's about time he made that announcement. It was obvious that he wasn't going to carry gay marriage amendment once he got re-elected.
 

MisterCornell

Banned
Dec 30, 2004
1,095
0
0
He would have an easier time passing that than he will his social security reform.

Outside San Fransisco and the "Gay State" of Massachussetts, heterosexual only marraige amendments are very popular with voters. Here in Ohio, a whole host of dumb Republicans came out against the gay marraige amendment that was on the ballots, including Bob Taft (whose term limited), Senators Voinovich and Dewine, and AG Jim Petro. Petro is going to take a beating, because he wants to be govornor. On the other hand, Blackwell came out in favor of it, and this has made him the front runner for govornor now. Marraige amendments = make you popular with voters. That is the prevalent logic now in American politics, since all 11 state marraige amendments passed so easily just in the past election.

HOwever, social security is one of those rare issues for which incumbent Congressmen can get voted out of office. I think Bush is "misunderstimating" how tough it will be to pass the SS reform.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
All he's done here is demonstrate that this was never a principled position for him and that he is willing to exploit base prejudice to drum up votes. I see him as even more despicable now, if that is even possible.
What an assinine statement. President Bush concedes this issue after "Democrats called on [him] to abandon his push for an amendment", and that makes him more despicable.

In essence, if he follows his own agenda, he's a bad guy. If he doesn't, he's a bad guy. What's the point of trying to please you people again? :roll:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: aidanjm
All he's done here is demonstrate that this was never a principled position for him and that he is willing to exploit base prejudice to drum up votes. I see him as even more despicable now, if that is even possible.
What an assinine statement. President Bush concedes this issue after "Democrats called on [him] to abandon his push for an amendment", and that makes him more despicable.

In essence, if he follows his own agenda, he's a bad guy. If he doesn't, he's a bad guy. What's the point of trying to please you people again? :roll:

Keyword "Agenda" and it is clear his was and always has been nothing but a facade to drum up votes from the dumb electorate and it has worked flawlessly.

I have to admit he is a great Politician, probably the greatest the U.S. has ever seen.


 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: joshw10
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i support his move, aslong as doma is constitutional then we don't need an amendment to protect the people's rights.

because keeping gays from marriage is "protecting your rights" .... :roll:
Because a society has a right to determine, by way of legislature proper, what is and isn't going to be condoned.

Gay hetero 2people 20, you're welcome to "love" whoever you want, but you don't have a natural right to have the government extend it's benefits to you just because your "love" causes you to engage in legal sexual activity.

you may want to extend those benefits to gays who live together, but that's a completely different discussion from weather or not we have federal benefits extended to those who engage in cohabitation by way of tyrannical judges.

I?m sorry that you feel your arguments and views are so ill developed that you choose to fail the basic test of argumentative charity.
The only right you're insisting on here is the right to discriminate as long as a majority of people also want to engage in this discrimination. Sadly, you'll get a lot of support for your position in America (and many other places around the world) right now.

 

Buz2b

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2001
4,619
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: aidanjm
All he's done here is demonstrate that this was never a principled position for him and that he is willing to exploit base prejudice to drum up votes. I see him as even more despicable now, if that is even possible.
What an assinine statement. President Bush concedes this issue after "Democrats called on [him] to abandon his push for an amendment", and that makes him more despicable.

In essence, if he follows his own agenda, he's a bad guy. If he doesn't, he's a bad guy. What's the point of trying to please you people again? :roll:


Actually there is no point trying; it'll never happen because 1, he is Republican/Conservative and because 2, he is George Bush. Both of those make them see red (pardon the intentional pun). ;)
Bush wanted the amendment but wisely recognized the futility of it as long as libs and some conservatives can hang on to the DOMA being ruled constitutional. However, if that is knocked down, I don't think you'll have to wait long for him to revive the amendment.

And 3chordcharlie "wisely" states,
The only right you're insisting on here is the right to discriminate as long as a majority of people also want to engage in this discrimination. Sadly, you'll get a lot of support for your position in America (and many other places around the world) right now.

Hmmm, since when has a Democratic government NOT been run by the majority? Besides that, our country provides the checks and balances to "protect the downtrodden". In the end though, the majority decides how it wants to govern it's own country. That's why we have elections. Oh wait, I know, Bush stole yet ANOTHER election, didn't he? Never mind he got millions more popular votes that Cigar Clinton ever dreamed of. ;) Yep, the electoral college actually elects the president and Clinton got a lot more than Bush has but look at the difference between then and now. After eight years of Clinton, the "Red states" have grown like wildfire. In addition, the Dems electoral votes went from Cigar Clintons high of 379 to Kerrys 252. Gee, ya ever wonder why?? :laugh:
(I must not post in P&N, I must not post in P&N, I must not post in P&N, I must not post in P&N, I must not post in P&N, I must not post in P&N.)
 

WooDaddy

Senior member
Jan 4, 2001
358
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The only right you're insisting on here is the right to discriminate as long as a majority of people also want to engage in this discrimination. Sadly, you'll get a lot of support for your position in America (and many other places around the world) right now.

I agree. I would imagine that those same people in the 'majority' would support a constitutional amendment against interracial marriage too.

Gay marriage does nothing to anyone else that is sweepingly detrimental to American society. We still live in a free country. If you don't like the neighborhood, flee like the rest of bigoted amerikkka like what happened during 'white flight' or stay and make your mark like the America we should live in. Who knows... you just might like your homosexual neighbors... just not when they're getting it on ;)

Personally, I'm for it. It'll shut people up, people will be happier and then it will no longer be an issue. Those who support an amendment will be seen as the bigots they are, just as those who support laws against interracial marriages and allowing women to vote, etc. Plus... it's not like there will be a mad rush for centuries and the gay people will run in the streets shooting guns and rioting for their victory. People didn't do for all the other positive amendments, but they did for the negative ones. Remember prohibition???

 

WooDaddy

Senior member
Jan 4, 2001
358
0
0
Oh yeah.. I understand the majority rules... And yes, as much as Dems hate to admit it, Bush won fair and square (but only because his competition was weak. John Kerry would've sucked as a pres and I'm a Dem for the most part), but it's a shame when America as a whole can stand together and support bias. It's truely upsetting that we as a whole disagree so much about a way of life that we call it illegal. That's what it's all about. Not letting human's live the life they've chosen or ARE.

It's like telling me I can't live a life and chose my own path because I'm black. I would riot and protest if I was told I wasn't able to have the same opportunities because of my skin color...

And guess what happened, we DID! And today we celebrate the man who openned doors for ALL of us. If the same thing happen again, I would do it all over. I would endure the water hoses, the jail time, the dogs, the comments. Why because it doesn't hurt as much as knowing your fellow man doesnt' see you as a fellow man.

As for homosexual rights, the same applies. Now we can all make our jokes about our fellow gay men and mano-i-mano (STOP LAUGHING!) but they are... Whatever happened the ninth and 14th amendment.