Bush Still Flip-Flopping: Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term -Aide

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...7/pl_nm/bush_agenda_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."

Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages.

Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.

Other items on Bush's second-term agenda included nominating -- without a "litmus test" on abortion -- judges who would "strictly interpret" the Constitution, and tax reform. Rove said Bush wanted to review the tax code "in its entirety," which suggested a broad-based reform was possible.

Republicans' ability to deliver on their campaign agenda will help determine whether the party can realize its potential to retain a governing majority for decades, he said.

The gay-marriage issue leaped into the campaign spotlight this year after Massachusetts legalized the practice in response to a state Supreme Court ruling, and San Francisco began performing gay marriages in defiance of a state ban.

Ballot measures in 11 states to ban gay marriages all passed last week. Gay-rights groups have vowed to keep fighting for legal protections of same-sex relationships despite the election setbacks.


CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."


ABORTION

Asked whether Bush intended to appoint anti-abortion judges to Supreme Court vacancies considered likely to come open in Bush's second term, Rove said the president would not use a litmus test. He said Bush wanted his judicial nominees to be "impartial umpires" who would strictly interpret the law and Constitution.

He played down a conservative firestorm over a suggestion last week by Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Republican, that Bush would have a hard time winning confirmation of any Supreme Court nominees who would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision legalizing abortion.

Specter is expected to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) with authority over judicial nominations.

Rove said Specter has assured Bush that his nominees would receive a prompt hearing and those picked for an appellate court would receive a vote by the full Senate.

Specter said on CBS that he had only been trying to point out that Republicans, while they expanded their Senate control in Tuesday's election, still lacked the Senate votes to overcome a united Democratic front.
Is he ever going to pick a stance on this and stick to it? His 2000 campaign he said it was up to the States. Then, he tries a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Then he told ABC's Charlie Gibson recently that he disagrees with the GOP stance of banning same-sex marriages at the federal level and now he's back to supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it?

:confused:
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Is he ever going to pick a stance on this and stick to it? His 2000 campaign he said it was up to the States. Then, he tries a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Then he told ABC's Charlie Gibson recently that he disagrees with the GOP stance of banning same-sex marriages at the federal level and now he's back to supporting a Constitutional Amendment banning it?

I believe Bush meant to say that he disagreed with the GOP stance of banning civil unions. Because hes stated before that the GOP doesn't like civil unions while hes okay with them (as you can imagine, he never said this very loudly)
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
this is just another big waste of tax payer money and government resources. It will never get the 2/3's vote needed at the state level for ratification.

And since he's trying again for a same-sex marriage ban, what's to say he's not going to try again with the draft bill. HEHE
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Booo...

Should be left to the states, but ultimately I'm against same-sex marriage bans.
 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Originally posted by: rickn
this is just another big waste of tax payer money and government resources. It will never get the 2/3's vote needed at the state level for ratification.

And since he's trying again for a same-sex marriage ban, what's to say he's not going to try again with the draft bill. HEHE



You mean the draft legislation the two Democrats brought up ?


Accordingly, two identical bills were introduced last year ( 2002 ). SB 89 was sponsored by Senator Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina. HR 163 was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage


:thumbsup:

Wow, Defining a marraige between one man & one woman... be proud.:)
Bush/Cheney '04 - 59million (including 7 million phantom votes) United!



Fixed
:beer:

Fixed it for you too.
 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage


:thumbsup:

Wow, Defining a marraige between one man & one woman... be proud.:)
Bush/Cheney '04 - 59million (including 7 million phantom votes the Democrats thought they had) United!



Fixed
:beer:

Fixed it for you too.

Fixed for you.

 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage


:thumbsup:

Wow, Defining a marraige between one man & one woman... be proud.:)
Bush/Cheney '04 - 59million (including 7 million phantom votes the Republican received thanks to their great friends Diebold and ES&S) United!



Fixed
:beer:

Fixed it for you too.

Fixed for you.

I can go on all day long...
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Well if we are denied the word "marriage", at least we might be able to get civil unions. I'd still say "married" anyway. As would most people IMO.
I wouldn't say "Did you hear Lisa and Jenny got civil unioned last week?"


 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: MidasKnight
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage


:thumbsup:

Wow, Defining a marraige between one man & one woman... be proud.:)
Bush/Cheney '04 - 59million (including 7 million phantom votes to Kerry the Democrats received thanks to their great friends Mickey Mouse and the Tin Man as registered voters) United!



Fixed
:beer:

Fixed it for you too.

Fixed for you.

I can go on all day long...


Same here ...but I won't ... you get the point by now I sure

;)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Well if we are denied the word "marriage", at least we might be able to get civil unions. I'd still say "married" anyway. As would most people IMO.
I wouldn't say "Did you hear Lisa and Jenny got civil unioned last week?"
Ah, but "Marriage" is a religious institution. Bullsh*t.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Well if we are denied the word "marriage", at least we might be able to get civil unions. I'd still say "married" anyway. As would most people IMO.
I wouldn't say "Did you hear Lisa and Jenny got civil unioned last week?"
Ah, but "Marriage" is a religious institution. Bullsh*t.

Maybe we should redefine the meaning of "man" and "woman".

 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Marriage in the traditional sense of the word should be left to the religious folks. I'm against using church institutions to perform same sex marriage, unless it's churches that appeal to the gays. And quite frankly they could call it a making whoopi ceremony, but it would still be a civil union. And anyone who gets hitched by a justice of the peace, or a shotgun wedding in vegas, would be a civil union (in other words, you would get NO marriage license or certificate). Straight folks, gay folks, doesn't matter. Everyone would be entitled to the same spousal benefits.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,799
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
CIVIL UNIONS

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), a Maine Republican, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. "The states are perfectly able to handle this important issue on their own," Collins said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Well if we are denied the word "marriage", at least we might be able to get civil unions. I'd still say "married" anyway. As would most people IMO.
I wouldn't say "Did you hear Lisa and Jenny got civil unioned last week?"
Ah, but "Marriage" is a religious institution. Bullsh*t.

A religious institution? May'be. To some. But I agree, to alot of people, marriage is a way to lower your car insurance. There are alot of people that want to keep it between a man and a woman, for whatever reasons. I agree, families are important. Staying together is important. But I am on the outside, looking in. It's a joke these days. It may have meant something at one time. But no more.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: rickn
Marriage in the traditional sense of the word should be left to the religious folks. I'm against using church institutions to perform same sex marriage, unless it's churches that appeal to the gays. And quite frankly they could call it a making whoopi ceremony, but it would still be a civil union. And anyone who gets hitched by a justice of the peace, or a shotgun wedding in vegas, would be a civil union (in other words, you would get NO marriage license or certificate). Straight folks, gay folks, doesn't matter. Everyone would be entitled to the same spousal benefits.
No one is going to force a church to perform a same-sex marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution in this country. A marriage license is required to get married and court order is required to end a marriage. The religious aspect to a marriage ceremony is an add-on and is not a necessary component.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,638
6,456
126
Gays are born gay so they are not sinful. This contradicts the Bible which is therefore wrong. That means there is no God and everybody who believes in him is dead for eternity when they die. That's why I hate Gays. I am afraid to face the truth that how I feel about them comes from my own inability to have real faith that relies on nothing, not even the Bible. I only lie when I say I was born again.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: rickn
Marriage in the traditional sense of the word should be left to the religious folks. I'm against using church institutions to perform same sex marriage, unless it's churches that appeal to the gays. And quite frankly they could call it a making whoopi ceremony, but it would still be a civil union. And anyone who gets hitched by a justice of the peace, or a shotgun wedding in vegas, would be a civil union (in other words, you would get NO marriage license or certificate). Straight folks, gay folks, doesn't matter. Everyone would be entitled to the same spousal benefits.
No one is going to force a church to perform a same-sex marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution in this country. A marriage license is required to get married and court order is required to end a marriage. The religious aspect to a marriage ceremony is an add-on and is not a necessary component.

Right, I got married in a courthouse.