Jump to content

He's got the Constitution in his sights.


Lookin
This topic is 6020 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I thought he might be content with just ignoring the Constitution. Now it appears he wants to take a stab at rewriting it.

 

 

Bush Backs Federal Marriage Amendment

 

Jun 3, 12:14 PM (ET)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.

 

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

 

Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election.

 

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

 

"Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance."

 

The White House said Bush did not devote his radio address to the issue or decide to host a presidential event Monday to again endorse the amendment because it is politically expedient, but because there's a vote on it scheduled next week in the Senate.

 

"On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations and religious leaders," Bush said in urging Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. "They're Republicans, Democrats and independents who've come together to support this amendment."

 

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 would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

 

Bush said the amendment would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

 

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 - has said he will vote for it.

 

Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm.

 

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

 

David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

 

"It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals," he said. "It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior and when it's the law, it's a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate."

 

In his radio address, Bush struck back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

 

"Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years," the president said.

 

Bush said there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems likely that the amendment won't go anywhere; in the Senate it may not have even a simple majority in favor, let alone the necessary 2/3 majority necessary to send it on to the House. It's nothing more than catering/groveling to the most bigoted and extreme wing of God's Own Party in the hope of re-energizing their crumbling base. I think this is going to turn off a lot of Americans -- opposition to gay marriage is dropping, as people become used to the idea and realize that life has gone on unaltered in the jurisidictions where it's now a reality. There also are so many really urgent things for Congress to be dealing with that many voters are going to resent the waste of time and money involved in dredging up this previously defeated albatross for another try. And history will long remember Bush, Frist and all the other supporters of this excrescence. There haven't been many American politicians in recent memory who were willing to put their names and votes on the record as supporters of naked bigotry. Most politicians worry about their legacy; they'll never be able to erase this from the way history regards them.

 

Meanwhile, feel free to call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them how strongly you feel about this and that you want them to oppose this unforgiveable effort to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. Pick up that phone now, because this will be voted on very soon. Call even if you know that your Senators support the amendment; they need to be reminded that they have real live constituents who oppose it and will hold them responsible at the polls. It's important for them to hear voices other than the usual ones they hear from the KKKrischun krazies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any suggested wording for the proposed amendment, but I'm thinking he might try something like this:

 

 

Amendment XXVIII to the United States Constitution

 

Section 1. There shall be no law that will permit any state, community, or foreign government to legally recognize the marriage of any person who does not marry another person of the opposite sex. Such legally recognized marriages will be performed by a duly appointed government or religious official using the English language, except possibly at the point where a Jewish bride and groom stomp the glass to smithereens under the Chupah.

 

Section 2. We would prefer that the one man and the one woman entering this perfectly legal and Godly union do so as a white man and a white woman, or as a black man and a black woman, or as a yellow man and . . . well, you get the drift.

 

Section 3. Weddings in a Church, or in some cases in a Synagogue or in an air-conditioned tent, are encouraged; while weddings in a park, or in the living room, or in Vegas, are discouraged. A minimum of six bridesmaids is suggested, although actual prosecution for violation of these governmental guidelines will be at the discretion of the individual States.

 

Section 4. If anybody who is not a man and a woman actually think they are married just because some judge or crazy San Francisco mayor said they are, they have another think coming. They need to get rid of any certificates, or wedding cards, or any kids they may have adopted, because, when this amendment gets into effect, they will not be married, and those kids will need to go back to the orphanages where they came from.

 

Section 5. And I especially do not want to see anybody married who is planning a sex change down the line. This back door run around the Constitution will be nipped in the bud by the next amendment I am working on right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Bush gave his speech supporting the anti-gay-marriage amendment. I'd be willing to nominate it as the most shameful speech by an American President since at least 1900. Maybe ever. It's hard, of course, to decide which is the lowest point of this lowest of American presidencies. Bush's rule has been marked by endless lies and deceptions, but other presidents have lied and deceived. Proclaiming on national television that he's proud to stand with bigots who want to enshrine their prejudices in the U.S. Constitution is of a different order entirely. If the Democrats ever get back in, they ought to REQUIRE that this speech be played on an endless loop at any future tax-supported Bush presidential library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, gosh. As expected, the anti-gay-marriage act went down in flames today in the Senate. The equally digusting Republicans in the House are threatening to bring it up so they, too, can find ways not to deal with the issues Americans REALLY care about, although it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing there, either. This sounds like a real winning tactic, to me! Please encourage the Republicans to keep impaling themselves on their own swords, especially by sitting on them!

 

BTW, Jon Stewart took Bill Bennett apart on The Daily Show. The YouTube excerpt can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com I've NEVER seen that insufferable blowhard Bennett so easily demolished -- he just didn't have ONE even remotely intelligent or logical comeback for Stewart. View the segment and send it to all your conservative friends! }(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to Mathew Shepard's parents:

 

“Anyone that believes that the hatred behind this amendment is any different than the hatred that was the cause of our son‘s murder is fooling themselves. Instead of trying to enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution for a threat that does not exist, let‘s spend the time more wisely by building and supporting rights for all citizens.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...