Bush wants U.S. Constitution amended to ban gay marriage
 

Bush wants U.S. Constitution amended to ban gay marriage
Last Updated Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:55:08
WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on Tuesday.

Blaming activist courts and local officials, Bush said the institution of marriage is in danger of being changed forever.

"Attempts to redefine marriage … could have serious consequences," he said.

In a news conference, Bush said he is calling on Congress to prepare a constitutional amendment that would "define and protect marriage as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that barring gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, San Francisco city hall began issuing "gender neutral" marriage licences. More than 3,200 same-sex couples were married in a period of several days.

Individual states, Bush said, would be free to define other "legal arrangements."

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution needs to pass both houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority, and needs the approval of 38 states.

At least 38 states have already passed laws or amendments banning gay marriage.

A bill to amend the Constitution has been put before the House of Representatives by Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave. Bush didn't specifically endorse the proposed legislation in his announcement on Tuesday.

=====================

Let the flames begin...now!

with liberty and justice for all...provided of course that you are anglo-saxon protestant annoy:

bush is a closet homo anyway. he got funky with victor ashe so i guess this anti gay thing is a way of bush saying to the world "i am straight".

president fag.

Guess that means gayblade can't get married to Blitz oOo:

I think they should just do marry who they want, it's not sweat off my back.

They do thier thing, i'll do mine. this might not get bush relected, at least not any votes from the gay community im sure.

Dingadangadingadangadingadang


Wouldn't expect less from an inbred chimp anyway.

rolleyes:

mad: THAT IS BS!!!!!!! mad:

Who is to say that someone can't join in marriage because they are the same sex... separation of church and state my ass!!! that really makes me mad!

calmdown:

For crying out loud, now hes trying to amend the constitution over this shit?? I swear this is so freakin petty and a waste of our time. What is the big god damned deal about this. If he is so worried about the 'sanctity' of marriage being diminished, he should focus more on the divorce rate than this.

calmdown:

Hes pretty worried..They just scrapped the Terror Alert Level and put in the Gayness alert

[img]http://www.daplayazclub.com/uploads/gaynessthreat.jpg[/img]

LOL!! biggrin:

There goes all the Republican votes from San Francisco... biggrin:

This is just fucking ridiculous.

Here is the solution:

Don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union or what the hell ever. Let them do whatever they want and get the same benefits, but don't call it marriage.

If I have to be tolerant and respectful of everyone else's beliefs, why does everyone get to flame and ignore mine? Marriage is a word of Biblical origin. Period. It didn't come from anywhere but the Bible. So let us keep the sanctity of our religion just like we have to acknowledge the sanctity of everyone else's.

Fuck.

calmdown:

Bush's problem? He thinks its the 1920's still. Fucking moron. oOo:

calmdown:

Why not call it marriage? it isnt just for christians. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, and Native peoples get married too. Also what do you call two people who want to love eachother and want to have a binding, legal union? Its called marriage. You guys need to stop getting so sentimental over this shit, it doesnt mean your marriage is worth any less or is degraded by any mean. If you feel like your marriage is threatened by the marriage of two men or two women, then that is a lack of faith on your part towards your own marriage.

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":7cf4f] calmdown:[/quote:7cf4f]

the_finger:

owned!

We've already had this debate in another thread, but marriage would be worth less if two gay people married because it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's been like this for thousands of years, and I'd like to maintain some traditional values. They can have their "civil unions" as far as I'm concerned, but don't call it "marriage."

Say you're a national merit scholar. If they decided to let anyone declare themselves as national merit scholars, wouldn't you be a bit upset? It would throw out the whole meaning of the term.

Uh, nein.

I don't understand why it's okay for everyone to flip out when one of their beliefs is challenged by someone else's actions, but it's not okay for Christians to be upset when someone shits all over one of it's most sacred institutions? I just hate double standards.

yay
all the fags will now come to canada oOo:

[quote="SW-14":01b3b]We've already had this debate in another thread, but marriage would be worth less if two gay people married because it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's been like this for thousands of years, and I'd like to maintain some traditional values. They can have their "civil unions" as far as I'm concerned, but don't call it "marriage."

To you maybe it would have less meaning, but like i said before, i think that just means that you dont take your marriage very seriously.

Say you're a national merit scholar. If they decided to let anyone declare themselves as national merit scholars, wouldn't you be a bit upset? It would throw out the whole meaning of the term.[/quote:01b3b]

Becoming a national merit scholar means that you through hard work you have earned this recognition. Marriage isnt something you earn, its something that is available to EVERYONE. These are two completely different things.

This has nothing to do with Christianity vs anyone, i was simply stating that marriage was not exclusive to Christians. There are two ways to look at this situation, Noctis. 1 you could say that religious people are being forced to accept this despite the fact that homosexuality is contrary to to your beliefs. In a way this is true and I wont argue with you on that. Or you could see no. 2. American citizens are being denied the right to get married. You said yourself that marriage is a basic cornerstone of our civilization, yet a group of our own citizens are being denied their rights as human beings. You have to pick the lesser of the two evils here. To me, it is more important that this society becomes more tolerant of its own people than to keep a small amount of tradition. Turn marriage from man/woman to person/person.

Okay, and here is what you are ignoring:

If they aren't Christian anyway (which they can't be a true Christian if they're homosexual, considering that's against Christian beliefs), then why can't they just accept it being called a civil union with all the same tax and other benefits that are typically associated marriage?

Sure, marriage is just a word to them, but to me it's much more than that. And if, to them, it's just a word, what's the big deal with calling it something else?

[quote=Madmartagen]Becoming a national merit scholar means that you through hard work you have earned this recognition. Marriage isnt something you earn, its something that is available to EVERYONE. These are two completely different things.[/quote:63100]

You totally missed the point, being that gay marriages would degrade the meaning of the word "marriage." The term "National Merit Scholar" would mean nothing if it was available to anyone, and the same applies for "marriage." It would just be another legal term. "Marriage" goes beyond that.

im ok with it. ban those fukers ...

I don't believe that's what he meant by saying marriage was the cornerstone of civilization. Marriage between a man and a woman (which typically leads to reproduction...) is the cornerstone. Find me two gay people who can reproduce and I'll be fine with letting them call their union "marriage."

[quote="SW-14":02a6a]I don't believe that's what he meant by saying marriage was the cornerstone of civilization. Marriage between a man and a woman (which typically leads to reproduction...) is the cornerstone. Find me two gay people who can reproduce and I'll be fine with letting them call their union "marriage."[/quote:02a6a]

Get a gay guy, and a manly looking lesbian who also like the cock...problem solved. biggrin:

Why is it that the US is always going backwards compared to the rest of the world?

we will take a big leap forward soon, dont worry the_finger:

[quote="Sgt. Paine":d9d95]we will take a big leap forward soon, dont worry the_finger:[/quote:d9d95]

Yeah and move into the 20th century while the rest of the worlds in the 21'st oOo:

lol lets fuck

calmdown:

calmdown:

buttoks you love the cock

talk about freedom.

rolleyes:

Most people here that oppose gay marriages are not opposed to gay "civil unions" that would give them equal protection under the law.