Allen

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment

'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'

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

Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, judges of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, and county officials in New Mexico who
moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said
that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have
made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

"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. (Transcript of Bush
comments)

"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."

Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages
performed in states that allow them.

"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."

He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for
ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as
the union of a "husband and wife."

But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal
arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment
would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for
same-sex couples.

"Our government should respect every person and protect the
institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction
between these responsibilities."

A call for civil debate
Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.

"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."

As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage
should be restricted to heterosexual couples. (Full story)

He added that he was "troubled" by legal decisions in Massachusetts
that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by
San Francisco's Newsom this month to defy state law and order the
county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Thousands of couples have taken advantage. (California high court may
get same-sex marriage)

Last week, Bush said he was paying close attention to what was taking
place in San Francisco and Massachusetts.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where
licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,"
Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to
protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are
influencing my decision."

"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen,"
Bush said.

In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush has addressed
same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of
marriage." (Full story)

He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would
ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative
groups had hoped.

Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will
upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the
constitutional process."

Justme

What about the economy? Bush not concerned about that?
70% of all marriages end in divorce and should that be one of the things in
the amendment banning divorces too? Childeren suffer when they get
divorced...and no child support the states have to take over and support the
kids..and sometimes the x-wives..hey get real..Marriage is a ****ing joke..
"Allen" <> wrote in message
news:5t0n30p9dno601hct9m86sscgag713ukmr@news...
    > Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
    > 'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'
    > WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a
    > constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the
    > meaning of marriage from being changed forever."
    > Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, judges of the
    > Massachusetts Supreme Court, and county officials in New Mexico who
    > moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said
    > that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have
    > made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.
    > "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. (Transcript of Bush
    > comments)
    > "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."
    > Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages
    > performed in states that allow them.
    > "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."
    > He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for
    > ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as
    > the union of a "husband and wife."
    > But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal
    > arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment
    > would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for
    > same-sex couples.
    > "Our government should respect every person and protect the
    > institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction
    > between these responsibilities."
    > A call for civil debate
    > Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.
    > "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."
    > As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage
    > should be restricted to heterosexual couples. (Full story)
    > He added that he was "troubled" by legal decisions in Massachusetts
    > that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by
    > San Francisco's Newsom this month to defy state law and order the
    > county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    > Thousands of couples have taken advantage. (California high court may
    > get same-sex marriage)
    > Last week, Bush said he was paying close attention to what was taking
    > place in San Francisco and Massachusetts.
    > "I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where
    > licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,"
    > Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to
    > protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are
    > influencing my decision."
    > "I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen,"
    > Bush said.
    > In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush has addressed
    > same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of
    > marriage." (Full story)
    > He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would
    > ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative
    > groups had hoped.
    > Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will
    > upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the
    > constitutional process."

Wolfgang Schwanke

Allen <> wrote in
news:5t0n30p9dno601hct9m86sscgag713ukmr@news:

    > Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment

Does he allow same-sex divorce though? Anyway, what does this have to do
with European travel? Is it really a camouflaged spam from the Danish
ministry for tourism trying to attract homosexual Americans to get married
there? And would that marriage be recognised in the United States then?

Ng User

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:28:07 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <>
wrote:

    >Allen <> wrote in
    >news:5t0n30p9dno601hct9m86sscgag713ukmr@news:
    >> Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
    >Does he allow same-sex divorce though? Anyway, what does this have to do
    >with European travel? Is it really a camouflaged spam from the Danish
    >ministry for tourism trying to attract homosexual Americans to get married
    >there? And would that marriage be recognised in the United States then?

Easier & cheaper just to come on up to Ontario or B.C. (in Canada)
where same sex marriage is legal.

Gay Marriage Kerry

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:14:13 GMT, "justme" <tcc-> wrote:

    >What about the economy? Bush not concerned about that?

So preserving marriage from law breaking Homo-Fascists = Not Caring
about the economy. Nice logic.

Keep talking down the economy
Bush has gotten us out of the Clinton recession and growth rates up,
jobs (a laging indicator in all recoverys Economics 101) are up, and
we kicked ass in Afganistan and Iraq. No terrorists attacks on USA
soil since Bush doctrine was enacted.

If Gore or Kerry were president. They would have kept on ignoring
intell like Clinton did 2 and half years before 9-11. They would have
raised taxes in a recession, which would have turned it into a
depression. They would have responded to 9-11 like Clinton responded
to the 1st world trade center bombing and treated it like a crime
instead of an act of war. If (and that's a big if), they would have
sought war, they would have never violated Saddam bought French vetoes
in the security council. Saddam would still be in power, raping and
killing, and paying terrorists.




    >70% of all marriages end in divorce and should that be one of the things in
    >the amendment banning divorces too? Childeren suffer when they get
    >divorced...and no child support the states have to take over and support the
    >kids..and sometimes the x-wives..hey get real..Marriage is a ****ing joke..

All marriages not ending perfectly means gay marriage should be legal
Nice logic

I see you saw Bill Richards talking points. You better come up with
some better material.

Sjoerd

"Wolfgang Schwanke" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
    > Allen <> wrote in
    > news:5t0n30p9dno601hct9m86sscgag713ukmr@news:
    > > Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
    > Does he allow same-sex divorce though? Anyway, what does this have to do
    > with European travel? Is it really a camouflaged spam from the Danish
    > ministry for tourism trying to attract homosexual Americans to get married
    > there?

There is *no* same sex marriage in Denmark, only registered partnerships aka
marriage second class. The only countries where same sex couples can marry
are the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada (some provinces).

from: http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html

Legal Marriage
a.. The Netherlands is the first nation in the world to offer legal
marriage for same-sex couples. On December 19, 2000, the Dutch legislature
made a law allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. It also
allows those who have already signed up as domestic partners (which has
restrictions regarding adoption) to convert them to full, legal marriage
status. Only citizens and legal residents of the Netherlands will be able to
marry there. The law took effect in April 1, 2001. [Please see our article:
Netherlands Offers Legal Marriage.]

b.. Belgium is the second nation in the world to offer legal marriage for
same-sex couples. On January 30, 2003, the Belgium legislature made a law
allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. [Please see: Belgium
Offers Legal Marriage.]

c.. The Canadian province of Ontario became the third government in the
world, on June 10, 2003, and British Columbia became the fourth, on July 8,
2003, to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples. Unlike the Netherlands
and Belgium, it was high court interpretations of the Canadian Constitution
that brought about removal of the ban. [See our article: B.C. and Ontario
Offer Legal Marriage.]

Sjoerd

Wolfgang Schwanke

"Sjoerd" <> wrote in
news:403b97dc$0$571$:

    > There is *no* same sex marriage in Denmark, only registered
    > partnerships aka marriage second class.

Oh I didn't know that, I thought it was "true" marriage. If they'll settle
for registered partnerships, then many countries have it, not just Denmark.
<insert advertisment plug on behalf of the German tourism industry>

    > The only countries where same
    > sex couples can marry are the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada (some
    > provinces).

Isn't the difference just in the name? I guess it's all just a token debate
anyway, because I assume the OP isn't against the marriage aspect of
homosexuality but against the whole concept ...

Regards

Sjoerd

"Wolfgang Schwanke" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
    > Isn't the difference just in the name? I guess it's all just a token
debate
    > anyway, because I assume the OP isn't against the marriage aspect of
    > homosexuality but against the whole concept ...

No, the difference is not just in name. Many people want full marriage
rights for same-sex couples because that means equal rights. It would also
be strange, wouldn't it, if couples of the same race could marry and for
different-race couples we had registered partnerships?

Sjoerd

Tim Kroesen

So now you're equating Homosexuality with 'race' rights???

No ploy is apparently out of bounds for Homosexual politics...
Including posting into MEOW threads.

Tim K

"Sjoerd" <> wrote in message
news:403b9c40$0$571$...
    > "Wolfgang Schwanke" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:...
    > > Isn't the difference just in the name? I guess it's all just a token
    > debate
    > > anyway, because I assume the OP isn't against the marriage aspect of
    > > homosexuality but against the whole concept ...
    > No, the difference is not just in name. Many people want full marriage
    > rights for same-sex couples because that means equal rights. It would
also
    > be strange, wouldn't it, if couples of the same race could marry and
for
    > different-race couples we had registered partnerships?
    > Sjoerd

Mr. Obvious

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:04:06 +0100, Allen wrote:

    > Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
    >
    > 'Prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever'
    >
    > WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a
    > constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to "prevent the
    > meaning of marriage from being changed forever."
    >
    > Criticizing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, judges of the
    > Massachusetts Supreme Court, and county officials in New Mexico who
    > moved to let same-sex couples receive marriage licenses, Bush said
    > that in recent months "some activist judges and local officials have
    > made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.
    >
    > "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. (Transcript of Bush
    > comments)
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > Bush said states might be forced to recognize same-sex marriages
    > performed in states that allow them.
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > He called on Congress to "promptly pass and send to the states for
    > ratification" an amendment that would specifically define marriage as
    > the union of a "husband and wife."
    >
    > But Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal
    > arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment
    > would do nothing to stop states from allowing civil unions for
    > same-sex couples.
    >
    > "Our government should respect every person and protect the
    > institution of marriage," he said. "There is not a contradiction
    > between these responsibilities."
    >
    > A call for civil debate
    > Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.
    >
    > "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."
    >
    > As recently as last week, Bush repeated his belief that marriage
    > should be restricted to heterosexual couples. (Full story)
    >
    > He added that he was "troubled" by legal decisions in Massachusetts
    > that could clear the way for same-sex marriage -- and the decision by
    > San Francisco's Newsom this month to defy state law and order the
    > county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    >
    > Thousands of couples have taken advantage. (California high court may
    > get same-sex marriage)
    >
    > Last week, Bush said he was paying close attention to what was taking
    > place in San Francisco and Massachusetts.
    >
    > "I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where
    > licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise,"
    > Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to
    > protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are
    > influencing my decision."
    >
    > "I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen,"
    > Bush said.
    >
    > In his State of the Union speech last month, Bush has addressed
    > same-sex marriage, saying, "our nation must defend the sanctity of
    > marriage." (Full story)
    >
    > He stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would
    > ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative
    > groups had hoped.
    >
    > Instead, Bush said, "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will
    > upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the
    > constitutional process."

The Conservative philosophy:
If something offends you or threatens your worldview, outlaw it, regardless
of whether the 'offensive' action hurts anyone else or not.
If you don't understand someone, kill them, rather than take a chance that
your viewpoint might be altered for the better through knowledge.
Do NOT under any circumstances give peace a chance.
And never, EVER put human beings on the same level as a corporation.
Business comes first, human needs are irrelevant.

It's a pretty dim and bleak philosophy.