Constitutional Amendment

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 24, 2004, 2:23 pm

The expected is now official..

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _gays_dc_9

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) endorsed a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would ban gay marriage as he seized the initiative in a contentious issue that could energize his conservative base for the November election.

In making the announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room, Bush expressed alarm at events in San Francisco, where marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians, and in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled gay couples have the right to wed.

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," Bush said.

His hastily arranged appearance came a day after he halted his above-the-fray position in his re-election campaign and opened an attack on Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), who is running to challenge Bush in the general election.

"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife.

But Bush left the door open to states to provide homosexual civil unions and other legal arrangements for the gay community.

"The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," Bush said.

OTHER LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS

Elaborating on this theme, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "states have a right to enter into their own legal arrangements, certainly hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions."

The Republican president did not endorse specific legislation as the vehicle for the amendment but the White House said Bush approved of the broad principles offered by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

Her proposed amendment says "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Same-sex marriage has become a hot-button issue in this presidential election year, with opponents saying it would destroy the institution of marriage. Proponents say gays should have the same rights as others to marry and that an amendment would enshrine discrimination in the Constitution.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the 50 U.S. states.

However, Democrats expect conservatives to push the gay marriage issue intensely in an election year in which jobs, health care and the economy are on voters' minds.

Recent polls show the issue could be a winner for Bush, who has long courted Christian conservatives as a key element of his political base.

"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," McClellan said. "This is a principled decision."

Kerry, a Massachusetts native himself, says he favors civil unions for gays but not the court's marriage ruling. He also says his position is the same as that of Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), one of whose daughters is openly gay.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 24, 2004, 2:27 pm

i'd be surprised if it got the 2/3 of the senate required.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 24, 2004, 2:30 pm

Pursuit of happiness aslongasyouarentgay?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 24, 2004, 3:14 pm

I think the amendment is to change Pursuit of Happiness to Pursuit of Contentment.

Post by **Xouqoa** » February 24, 2004, 3:47 pm

BUT MARRIAGE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED!D!1!!1

lame

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 3:50 pm

Regardless, he just lost my vote. Aside of the fact that I don't agree with either the act or the motives, this is a clear case of the federal gov't making a grab for powers that should belong to the states.

Fuck Bush.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 24, 2004, 4:43 pm

masteen wrote:Regardless, he just lost my vote. Aside of the fact that I don't agree with either the act or the motives, this is a clear case of the federal gov't making a grab for powers that should belong to the states.

Fuck Bush.

Agreed. I'm not going to vote for a democrat just for the hell of it though. It's the grass isn't always greener on the other side syndrome. No pun intended but the only reason I'd vote for a democratic candidate is if they had me convinced that they could make an impact with environmental issues.

Playing Monday morning quarterback with the current president is easy. It's also easy to get over excited about the promises coming from candidates that won't be held accountable for what they say until they're in office.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » February 24, 2004, 4:59 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/

With sound.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 24, 2004, 5:43 pm

Winnow wrote:
masteen wrote:Regardless, he just lost my vote. Aside of the fact that I don't agree with either the act or the motives, this is a clear case of the federal gov't making a grab for powers that should belong to the states.

Fuck Bush.
Agreed. I'm not going to vote for a democrat just for the hell of it though. It's the grass isn't always greener on the other side syndrome. No pun intended but the only reason I'd vote for a democratic candidate is if they had me convinced that they could make an impact with environmental issues.

Playing Monday morning quarterback with the current president is easy. It's also easy to get over excited about the promises coming from candidates that won't be held accountable for what they say until they're in office.

It's this apathetic view I don't get. Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already, then why not vote for them? You strongly disagree with Bush on this point, correct? Strong enough to not give him your vote, correct? So this means you do not want to see him in office come election time, correct? So act on that. Voting is a powerful tool if you choose to use it.

A candidate being held accountable for what they say during an election run is a dream. What you have to look at is what has the current guy done, and can you live with him doing it again for another 4 years. That's what you're voting on.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 24, 2004, 5:55 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:It's this apathetic view I don't get. Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already, then why not vote for them? You strongly disagree with Bush on this point, correct? Strong enough to not give him your vote, correct? So this means you do not want to see him in office come election time, correct? So act on that. Voting is a powerful tool if you choose to use it.

Exactly.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 24, 2004, 6:21 pm

are you fucking kidding me?
stupid predjutice freedom-hating asshole

Party at my house for Bush's resignation speech before the new 2005 inaguration

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 24, 2004, 6:21 pm

The sad thing is that GW isn't even doing this out of a personal moral motivation (especially with the pole smoker he left in his stead in TX), but rather to secure the Jesus Crispy vote and bow to insurance lobbies who do not want to have to cover monogamous gay couples. If he was actually doing this based on his own personal convictions I could almost respect his convictions, though not his views.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 24, 2004, 6:41 pm

Jice Virago wrote:The sad thing is that GW isn't even doing this out of a personal moral motivation (especially with the pole smoker he left in his stead in TX), but rather to secure the Jesus Crispy vote and bow to insurance lobbies who do not want to have to cover monogamous gay couples. If he was actually doing this based on his own personal convictions I could almost respect his convictions, though not his views.

The predjutice bible thumping assholes hes trying to appeal to would vote for him anyways

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 24, 2004, 6:59 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:It's this apathetic view I don't get. Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already, then why not vote for them? You strongly disagree with Bush on this point, correct? Strong enough to not give him your vote, correct? So this means you do not want to see him in office come election time, correct? So act on that. Voting is a powerful tool if you choose to use it.

A candidate being held accountable for what they say during an election run is a dream. What you have to look at is what has the current guy done, and can you live with him doing it again for another 4 years. That's what you're voting on.

Kerry (if that's even who the Dems choose) has a lot of time to fuck up, reveal some hidden skeleton, or lose his mind before election day. Let's not cast our vote until the mudslinging even begins!

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 24, 2004, 9:26 pm

I am still trying to figure out how this affects straight people. Dear god who cares if gay people marry? Is this somehow going to turn everyone gay? They just want the rights that every other married couple has.

Also last I checked wasn't, the US supposed to be founded on the separation of Church and State?

I know I am not the smartest person, but I really don't get the uproar this has caused. It is not a protected right, it is a religious ceremony. Let gay people get married, WHO CARES. How about fixing the huge debt we have.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 24, 2004, 9:45 pm

i hope bush gets umm ... i can't say it or else the feds would prolly kick down my door

but anyways im glad im 18 and registered to vote .. im voting for whoever has the best chance of beating him die bush!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 24, 2004, 10:00 pm

Drasta wrote:i hope bush gets umm ... i can't say it or else the feds would prolly kick down my door

but anyways im glad im 18 and registered to vote .. im voting for whoever has the best chance of beating him die bush!

don't just vote...let your senators representatives and the pres know that you are not only opposed to this amendment but will actively campaign against anyone supporting it...

senate.gov and house.gov will get you the names and email addresses

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 24, 2004, 10:32 pm

wow ... my house rep was the first one to sign it ... and i can't find his e-mail address to chew him a new one

nm i found it

nice long letter ... heh now watch me get an audimated response or something

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 25, 2004, 12:15 am

"Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already"

Guys. . .hate to burst your bubble, but Kerry also supports this ammendment. He came public about it before Bush in fact.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 25, 2004, 12:18 am

no I'm sure he'll take your letter very seriously. especially if you use the word "audimated" a lot

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 25, 2004, 12:48 am

Audimate: I does audimate a WHOLES LOT: Audimate

valryte · Post by **valryte** » February 25, 2004, 1:04 am

Hmm they are allowing gay marriages, guess I'll change my mind and not marry a women, I'll just turn gay cause it's ok, I can still get married...Anyone that ignorant should not be president. Fk, where's my voter's registration...

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 25, 2004, 1:14 am

Avestan wrote:"Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already"

Guys. . .hate to burst your bubble, but Kerry also supports this ammendment. He came public about it before Bush in fact.

No he doesn't. He doesn't support gay marriages, but doesn't want to put an amendment making it illegal into the Constitution.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 25, 2004, 2:01 am

Yay!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 25, 2004, 2:02 am

Wonder what Cheney's daughter thinks...

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 25, 2004, 4:30 am

who cares ... shes gay she doesn't matter

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 25, 2004, 11:49 am

Arborealus wrote:Wonder what Cheney's daughter thinks...

In the Vice Presidential debate in 2000, Dick Cheney said that this issue was not something the federal government should be involved in. It is a matter for the states.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 25, 2004, 12:07 pm

At least Cheney was right about something.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 25, 2004, 2:13 pm

voro .. but if you and your wife are married ... and you move to another state ... and they go no sorry your not married anymore and can't be ... what would you say?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 25, 2004, 2:48 pm

well, that is the Constitutional question that scares the jackbooted bible beating thugs Drasta.

because if i married a guy, and the state of Georgia granted me the financial status that a hetero couple got, i would be able to sue other states to grant me those same rights should i move there.

that is why they make up all this bullshit by suggesting that gays marrying will somehow destabilize the institution of marriage in our society, the fundamental building block.

Like i'm going to marry a guy now because the financial advantage of marrying a woman is no longer exlusive to her. I mean what a fucking joke.

Oh, cause gays can marry, i might date a guy to try it out.

Oh cause gays can marry i dont want to have kids anymore, and most other people won't either cause most of us really want to buttfuck.

THis is how stupid these people think the majority of Americans are. They know they can lead most of you around by the ring in your nose.

Moo moo moo

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 25, 2004, 3:13 pm

voro thats like the best sum up of it i ever heard =-P

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 25, 2004, 3:15 pm

Drasta wrote:voro thats like the best sum up of it i ever heard =-P

Voro = smartest guy on VV.

his posts.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 25, 2004, 3:21 pm

seriously though, if 90-95% of us are heterosexual....

i got news for you, in 100 years, 90-95% of us will still be heterosexual. and we'll still be wanting to get in each others' pants. and if marriage is less formalized in 100 years, it wont be because of the 5-10% of the population who are homosexual.

it will be the 90-95% who increasingly moved farther away from marriage as a lifelong commitment. Hello, 60% divorce rate.

It is juvenile behavior to blame others' for what is your own responsibility. The quality of my marriage is determined by 2 people, myself and my wife.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 25, 2004, 3:22 pm

i know .. its not like everyone jumps on the gay bandwagon

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 25, 2004, 3:44 pm

If less than 60% of gay couples end up getting a divorce it will be another bitch slap in the face to the homophobic freaks out there so they want to prevent that from happening!

Post by **Sylvus** » February 25, 2004, 4:01 pm

Voronwë wrote:Oh, cause gays can marry, i might date a guy to try it out.

Oh cause gays can marry i dont want to have kids anymore, and most other people won't either cause most of us really want to buttfuck.

voro

's penix. lololol

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 25, 2004, 4:18 pm

u r teh 1 with the rainbow colored avatar!!!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 25, 2004, 4:25 pm

60% of total marriages end in divorce (which counts people getting married multiple times)
people who get married have a 1/3 chance of getting a divorce

Post by **Sylvus** » February 25, 2004, 4:30 pm

Thank you, Fraction Man!

Or is it Captain Obvious?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 25, 2004, 4:33 pm

whats so obvious about it?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 25, 2004, 4:34 pm

i will spend the rest of the day meditating on the wonder of the number 2.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 25, 2004, 4:52 pm

Sionistic wrote:whats so obvious about it?

You basically converted a number which had already been presented in this thread (60%) into a a fraction. Now maybe it's because I went to private school, but I thought that conversions between percentages and fractions was pretty obvious. The bottom line is that I was just giving you shit for fun, no harm intended.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 25, 2004, 4:55 pm

Sionistic wrote:60% of total marriages end in divorce (which counts people getting married multiple times)
people who get married have a 1/3 chance of getting a divorce

that would be 3/5ths

/flex

Post by **Xouqoa** » February 25, 2004, 6:14 pm

Also, 6/10ths!

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » February 25, 2004, 6:34 pm

60/100ths?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 25, 2004, 7:37 pm

im sorry i guess i wasnt clear
the 60% is the total amount of marriages that end in divorce, which also includes people who get married over and over. So saying that YOU have a 60% chance of getting a divorce is not accurate. The actual chance of you getting a divorce is 1/3

Mak · Post by **Mak** » February 25, 2004, 10:11 pm

Sionistic wrote: The actual chance of you getting a divorce is 1/3

Or... 1/2. You either DO get divorced, or you DO NOT get divorced.

Sorry. Had to be said.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 25, 2004, 10:40 pm

you're excused

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 25, 2004, 10:45 pm

Sionistic wrote: The actual chance of you getting a divorce is 1/3

ya think so?...

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 25, 2004, 11:07 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Avestan wrote:"Unless the democratic candidate has done something equally reprehensible already"

Guys. . .hate to burst your bubble, but Kerry also supports this ammendment. He came public about it before Bush in fact.
No he doesn't. He doesn't support gay marriages, but doesn't want to put an amendment making it illegal into the Constitution.

I was watching Face the Nation like a week ago and Kerry's campaign manager said in no uncertain terms that Kerry supports the constitutional amendment. I am not making this shit up, he said it.