You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Bush reiterates support for amendment banning gay marriage
2006-06-06
For the second time in three days, President Bush implored the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, saying Monday that the issue needs to be wrestled away from "overreaching judges" and placed in the hands of the American people.

Critics on both sides of the debate accused the president of playing politics with the socially sensitive issue by seeking to rouse social conservatives to support Republicans in this congressional election year even if the cause has no realistic hope of enactment. Bush's talk came as the Senate continued debate on a measure that isn't likely to win the two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives that the Constitution requires. "Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and it should not be redefined by activist judges," Bush said following a meeting with amendment supporters in the White House. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And our changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."
Posted by:Fred

#8  And let's look for Republicans to start visiting factories that make the American flag

You mean factories in China?
Posted by: DMFD   2006-06-06 19:22  

#7  The Democrats, over the last 20 years, have introduced nearly 100 bills to ammend the Constitution. But when the Republicans introduce simmilar legislation they are met with "We should focus on more important issues". Sorry to shatter some illusions but the majority of Americans believe that family issues are not only important but fundamental to civilization as we know it.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-06-06 16:56  

#6  'Scuse me, but Al Q still wants to KILL US? Can we get back on topic here, Mister President?
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-06-06 13:18  

#5  The gay marriage should be up to the people in the state to vote on. I rather they kept flag burning that way I know who the assholes are. :)
Posted by: djohn66   2006-06-06 13:14  

#4  Don't forget the amendment banning desecration of the flag, too. And let's look for Republicans to start visiting factories that make the American flag, everyone loves photo ops at factories that produce American flags. It's this kind of imagination and competence in government on the part of Republicans that made me pull the lever for Bill Clinton. Twice.
Posted by: Perfesser   2006-06-06 12:11  

#3  This is the result of having a judiciary which believes and acts as though it is above the people. It long ago forgot Jefferson's warning about the 'consent of the govern'. I too would not like it having to be made a Constitutional Amendment, but I can not trust the judiciary to give a rat's fart about what the people want. Every referendum and legislative branch has turned back gay marriage, but it is those who are above the people to force it down their throats. Article IV, Section 1 means that each state must recognize the public acts and effects thereof of other states. The 14th Amendment stipulates that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen nor deny equal protection before the law. So, if one state recognizes and establishes gay marriages, then all states must recognize it and give the current judicial view on 'equal protection' then it will follow shortly that those within the other states will file and receive by judicial decree similar contracts without the consent of the govern. There is no legislative way around it. You have two choices, specifically by amendment take the issue away from the judiciary or make the judiciary directly accountable to the people.
Posted by: Hupaper Unolusing9804   2006-06-06 11:39  

#2  He should be. It's pure idiocy.

A fine example of "things that should NOT be in a constitution."
Posted by: mojo   2006-06-06 11:21  

#1  Isn't Andrew Sullivan opposed to this?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-06-06 08:51  

00:00