Bush Restates Position on Gay Marriage. what do you think?

Question

President Bush calls for an amendment banning gay marriage, saying marriage, as traditionally defined, "is the most fundamental institution of civilization." The president says he favors a constitutional amendment under Senate debate that would ban gay and lesbian couples from being married.

Marriage, the president said, "should not be redefined by activist judges." President Bush said the courts have forced him to take on the issue, as he believes states should decide which couples should be allowed to be married.

The amendment is scheduled to receive two days of debate in the Senate, where its chance of passage is considered slim at best.

As the discussion opened Monday, Democratic Leader Harry Reid questioned the need for the bill -- or the debate. Citing the issues of energy policy, the war in Iraq and the national debt, Reid called the move a Republican election-year ploy.

The gay-marriage ban, said Reid, "is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day." Reid said he agrees with the president that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he also said the issue should not require a constitutional amendment.

Answer 1

Surely that's much more important than, say, reducing the national debt from approximately $9 TRILLION dollars, including the 3 highest budget deficits in US history, courtesy of that compassionate "conservative" W.

Answer 2

Globally, the most fundamental institution is family NOT marriage. In a vast majority of civilizations marriage is a contract. It was a contract to establish dowry, bridewealth, maternal/paternal lineage, property rights, ownership, inheritance, and was used as a means to divide domestic responsibilities.

In general, children were "owned" by parents like you might own a cow. You want your cow to have the best bull to mate with and the best barn to live in. You hope that the calfs they generate will be healthy and strong to produce the best beef so you can live well when you are old, and your children will live well as they grow old. Children had little say as to who they would marry.

Marriage in the US is still for the most part a contract, a legal document that states the legal socio-economic relation of one person to another. The US government has no business in determining what adults can enter into this contract.

Some people might make a religious argument to support this "Amendment"... If that is valid then I think divorce should be illegal, the poor should be able to go onto the farmers field and pick up any leftovers, charging interest on loans should be illegal, the FDA should make sure all food is prepared Kosher. Pork products should be outlawed. People should be able to eat marijuana since in Genesis God said, "I give every green plant for food."
Families are institutions, mariage is a contract.

Answer 3

yes...that all happened. What's your question? Do I agree with the proposed ammendment? No. And neither do 40% of Americans.

Iwouldn't suggest putting the abortion issue up for a vote, as the majority of Americans believe a woman shold be protected, and that's why it's been upheld. And yes, democracy disappeared when Bush took the first election. The majority of Americans didn't want him then, and an OVERWHELMING majority don't want him now, hence the decision to move forward on a ban that won't pass. If he really wanted it, why did he wait until one day before the vote to tell us that he was doing it, and why is this the first time in his 6plus years that he's taking it on?

And it isn't a financial issue, it's an issue of family. When you are caring for the sick and elderly, and the government is telling you that you aren't that sick or elderly person's family, or your partner dies, and the child you raised it's whole life is not considered your child, all for the sake of uninvolved parties using those issues to promote their anti-gay agenda, well then let's hope that the meek will inherit the earth, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, because there would be no justice on this earth. And, as long as Bush makes it an amendment, people won't be able to vote on this issue. Do you really want the Government legislating your life for you? The states should tackle these issues and out them up to a vote, just like 17 states who voted to outlaw same-sax marriage have already done.

Answer 4

If the word "marriage" is a legal (government-recognized) package of rights and privileges, then the Constitution specifically prohibits states from making laws that restrict rights and privileges to some people (heterosexuals) and not others (homosexuals). Anyone who labels a judge who upholds that prohibition an "activist judge" is someone who finds the Constitution inconvenient. And anyone who advocates amending the Constitution specifically to *add* restrictions of rights and privileges to certain groups is someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution at all.

If it's just about the word "marriage" itself ... and the rights and privileges it represents can be separated into 'separate-but-equal' categories ("commitment ceremonies", "domestic partnerships", whatever) ... if it's about the "sanctity" of a word (whatever that means) ... then this is an effort to amend the Constitution just to define a word. The Constitution is not a dictionary.

Answer 5

I support it 100%. If a gay couple wants to have a relationship there are commitment ceremonies they can go through. By allowing them to be leagally marry means that the government is giving it their stamp of approval. Besides this is really a financial issue not a social one. Why would gay couples be so eager to be leagally married if not for things such as being covered by the other's health insurance and retirement plans.

People are going to do as they please. This is not legislation to stop homosexuality. It is to protect the sanctity of marriage. In response to the person who said that 40% of the American people are opposed to the amendment to ban gay marriage, I guess that would mean that 60% are for it. I would like to see it put to a vote of the American people. As far that that is concerned so should abortion. Democracy used to mean majority rules. Not anymore.

Answer 6

With all the issues going on right now, why is this important? Because Bush and Rove think this will rejuvinate the Republicon party by appealing to all they basically have left. The right wing Christian radicals. He says marriage is a sacred institutuion, and should be protected, then why don't they make divorce illegal? This is a political move that is making Bush look still dumber.

Answer 7

It's a non Issue. A ploy for votes from Ralph Reed, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. Also what Jackson said, they like to change the subject to issues that mean nothing, that way they avoid the Blatant failures the past six years. I like to talk about Golf.

Answer 8

I love when people bring up "sanctity of marriage," then I think what is happening on the honeymoon and how dirty that gets. Then I think about the domestic abuse problems in this country (worse than you think). Then there is the male/female divorce rate. Then the million dollar settlements. Then the woman taking the man for all the child support he can afford. And you know what I say.....@uck the sancity of marriage.

Answer 9

Look he is just pandering to the christian right wing. It won't pass and King George knows this.

King George W is a perfect example of why we are soposed to have a seperation of church and state, but as with all the other constitutional rights that we soposedly have, King George does not recogenise them and trounces on them at will.

ITMFA

Answer 10

I think they should be spending their time on more important thing than this. There is a long list of them. The growing deficit, the senseless war in Iraq, immigration problem, just to name a few.