STORM2K

WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) -- President Bush will back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in an attempt to halt same-sex unions like the thousands that have been allowed this month in San Francisco, his spokesman said Tuesday.


''He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the president wants to end ''growing confusion'' that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.

''The president believes it is important to have clarity,'' McClellan said.

''There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage.''

He said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., ''meets his principles'' in protecting the ''sanctity of marriage'' between men and women.

But Bush was not expected in his announcement Tuesday to specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation. White House officials say that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.


Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. ''We're two months away,'' he said.

McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the ''sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.

''We need to act now,'' he said. ''The constitutional process will take time.''

With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was ''troubled'' by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe. And couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,000 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be ''spouses for life.''

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.

Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: ''Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.''

*runs in and tickles Captin*

I listen to talk radio. I just KNEW I was gonna have to tickle someone before the day was over.

LOL

Bush must be confident of his win; he will lose many votes due to his ban to back the gay marriage amendment.

He will also gain a lot of votes for this very reason, and I'm quite sure that he will gain more than he will lose because of this. That's just the way it is.

You are right, southerngale. There are more people against gay marriages than in favor.

sunnyday wrote:Bush must be confident of his win; he will lose many votes due to his ban to back the gay marriage amendment.

Lose votes? How do you figure?

Even many of the straights who are tolerant of gays are not in favor of gay marriages. And some of us who are gay (ahem!) will still vote for W again, regardless of this issue. (I've said it before, I'll say it again - yes, it's important to me...but certain other critical issues are way more important right now.)

(Edit -- Kelly, ya beat me to it. I was still typing and you got ahead of me. )

And not all gays are for gay marriage. Dick Cheney's daughter is being targeted by those who are for it, because she won't come out and pronounce her stance.

Let's wait and see what the "Passion of the Christ" does to people over the next few days, it'll be interesting to say the least. "IF" people react the WAY I'm thinking and my reason for this is the reaction from people that have already seen the film, this could be, NO, it "IS" the revival of Christianity proclaimed in the Bible and this nonsense of same sex marriage will fall by the wayside!

Dennis

stormraiser wrote:And not all gays are for gay marriage. Dick Cheney's daughter is being targeted by those who are for it, because she won't come out and pronounce her stance.

Is she NOT for it? Or is she just not talking about it at all?

Dennis, I have to disagree with you. As long as there are people out there trying to turn people AWAY from God by telling them that He hates them, I don't think it's going to have that great of an effect on those who aren't open to learning and understanding about His love for us and accepting Him into their hearts. Of course, they are probably the ones who aren't going to go see the film anyway.

I will agree with you about it being nonsense...the way it's being handled now. (If I was a public figure, I'd be one of GLAAD's worst enemies right now )

The great thing about Bush is He isn't doing this to win or lose votes. He is doing it because he feels it is the right thing to do. This is a man that stands behind his convictions. It has been a long time since we have had a President that had this kind of backbone.

this issue was brought up by 4 liberal activist judges in mass, and 1 law breaker in san fran.
bush is right, marriage has been just fine for centuries. this is just a liberal secular attack on traditional values

rainstorm wrote:this is just a liberal secular attack on traditional values

They used to think that about interracial marriages also. Forget about whether it's liberal or conservative, secular or Christian. It's just not the right time yet. When and if it happens before the eyes of God and my family, then I'll accept it as being a "marriage". Otherwise, it's just like Britney Spears at a Vegas chapel all over again.

Besides, in a lot of states, the "act" that some of these couples would engage in if they were married is not legal yet.

You can't put the buggy before the horse.

See? This is the stuff that scares the heebie-jeebies outta me. :o

LOL why would that scare the heebie jeebies out of you.. it just looks like a guy and a girl laughing lol

GalvestonDuck wrote:

rainstorm wrote:this is just a liberal secular attack on traditional values

They used to think that about interracial marriages also. Forget about whether it's liberal or conservative, secular or Christian. It's just not the right time yet. When and if it happens before the eyes of God and my family, then I'll accept it as being a "marriage". Otherwise, it's just like Britney Spears at a Vegas chapel all over again.

Besides, in a lot of states, the "act" that some of these couples would engage in if they were married is not legal yet.

You can't put the buggy before the horse.

Its not even close to the same thing. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been understood and defined as man and woman. Interracial marriages were a product of prejudice, gay marriage is a moral and nature issue.

Josephine96 wrote:LOL why would that scare the heebie jeebies out of you.. it just looks like a guy and a girl laughing lol

That's what it looks like. But the one on the left? Not a guy. Now do ya get my drift? I mean, heck, if you're gonna be with someone who looks like a guy, get a guy.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you gotta be careful...sometimes it's a goose.

Me? I'm all duck!

HOLY $%$^ lol.. That is not a guy rotflmao.. that is some scary stuff there

stormchazer wrote:Its not even close to the same thing. Since the beginning of time, marriage has been understood and defined as man and woman. Interracial marriages were a product of prejudice, gay marriage is a moral and nature issue.

Marriage was also once defined as a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. But not a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman.

So, it was about nature too. People couldn't fathom the idea of races being mixed and the impurity of one race or the other being "tainted" by blood of another. And since most people argue that Adam and Eve were white, their thinking is that the white race is the pure race and that God didn't want the races to be mixed.

Although there are Scriptures in the OT where inter-faith marriages or marriages between two people from different lands are forbidden, it didn't speak against marriages of people from the same land but of differing races.

Furthermore, people worried about what the children conceived in these marriages might look like.

So just as gay marriage is a moral and nature issue, so was interracial marriage. And just as interracial was also an issue of prejudice, in some ways, so is gay marriage.

Duck, here's an article on what Mary Cheney believes on this issue...I thought I read somewhere she was against it, but this doesn't say how she feels, just that she isn't saying anything


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A487-2004Feb23.html

Mary Cheney Urged to Fight A Ban on Same-Sex Marriage


By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 24, 2004; Page A03

Thousands of gay rights supporters are posting open letters on the Internet urging Mary Cheney, the vice president's daughter, to speak out against amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.



The campaign targets Cheney, 34, because she is openly gay and is running her father's part of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign but has not taken a public position on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

"As an open lesbian who has worked for years as a public advocate for gay civil rights, you are in a unique position to defend yourself and your community in this dire hour," the Web site DearMary.comsays in a model letter.

John Aravosis, a Washington political consultant who set up the site, acknowledged that it is an unusually personal challenge to a member of Vice President Cheney's family.

"If I were a fly on the White House wall, I think they might be saying, 'Wow, this is very personal.' And we would say, 'You're right, this is very personal,' " Aravosis said. "The White House has no problem publicly discussing whether my family's relationships are valid and healthy, yet they refuse to discuss their own."

Jennifer Millerwise, a spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, declined to comment on behalf of the campaign and Mary Cheney.

Since the Web site went online Feb. 13, more than 8,000 pleas to Cheney have been posted, Aravosis said. He said the site has also raised more than $10,000 for advertisements drawing attention to Cheney's public silence and has invited public participation in devising them. One proposed ad would show her face on a milk carton under the headline, "Have you seen me?"

To some gay rights supporters, the campaign goes too far.

"We think it crosses the line of decency," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a national organization of more than 10,000 gay conservatives. "We don't support the harassment or attacking of family members, gay or straight, of elected officials."

But Guerriero agreed that the debate over a constitutional amendment is highly charged, both politically and emotionally. Log Cabin Republicans, which supported the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2000, has warned that it will break with the campaign if President Bush formally endorses the proposed amendment, as White House aides have said he intends to do.

"If the effort to write discrimination into the Constitution and use gay and lesbian Americans as a wedge issue becomes a centerpiece of the president's reelection campaign, then it's really the line in the sand for this organization," Guerriero said. "We've been extremely loyal to this president and party through thick and thin . . . but we are forced by this particular moment in history not to sit silent in what has emerged as the cultural war that far right groups have been wanting for years."

Aravosis, 40, is president of Wired Strategies, an Internet consulting firm, and a veteran of Internet-based political campaigns, including an advertising boycott of radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger because of anti-gay remarks she made four years ago.

He said he got the idea for the "Dear Mary" campaign from a Jan. 20 column in the weekly New York Press by gay writer Michelangelo Signorile. "This is one of those moments of truth, Mary. . . . And so far, you've been working for the enemy, darling," Signorile wrote.

Before going to work for her father in the 2000 presidential campaign, Mary Cheney was employed by Coors Brewing Co. as a liaison to the gay community.

Vice President Cheney said during the 2000 campaign that it should be up to the states to decide whether to recognize same-sex relationships, and that "I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy." In an interview published Jan. 11 by the Denver Post, he indicated that his position has not changed but said, "The president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes."