http://www.msnbc.com/news/945974.asp?0cv=CB10 Legislation would say marriage is between a man and woman WASHINGTON, July 30 — President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages. “I BELIEVE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden. Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” — not polarized on the issue of homosexuality. “I am mindful that we’re all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.” “On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added. SUPREME COURT ACTION Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling. The “opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, “Do not believe it.” Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. ========= Well, it's not like the gay community was going to give Bush their vote anyway.
**** that. That's pretty much all I have to say about it. Why anyone cares who people love and want to get married to is so beyond me.
Is his belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman religious or moral? How fine is that line between religious and moral? If it's his religious belief, there's no way he should try and impose that on the American people.
if you allowed marriage among the same sex wouldn't that mean friends could get "married" for tax benefits?
That's what I say RM95. Nobody tells people they can't interracially, internationally marry so why should we tell people that want to get married to someone of the same sex no, that's not right?
Actually, the legal defintion of marriage is between a man and a woman. A lot of conservatives advocate some sort of civil union between them, but not marriage, simply because it violates the principle of non contradiction. You just can't change the meaning of a word. If so, Toyota Center would sound cool because we could change the meaning of the word Toyota to be "Monstrous Lizard" and Center to "on the Rampage". Seeing that this cannot happen, then we are stuck with the lame ass name Toyota Center, and are forced to call it other things such as the Garage. A civil union would allow homosexuals to get benefits, stay in more stable relationships, and not compromise the definition of a word.
There are lots of companies who already consider same sex life partners as good as married because the "spouse" gets benefits. In fact it was easier at Apple to get health and life insurance coverage for a same sex partner that you lived with than a opposite sex partner that you lived with.
All you guys care about is money. Material goods do not equal happiness guys. They aren't neccessarily bad, but the economy has been getting going so you should stop making that same old argument.
Here's a snippet from an article that seems pertinent to this discussion: The homosexual activists are arguing in this state (Mass.), as in Vermont, that it's not "fair" to give all the advantages of marriage to just heterosexual couples. They demand the same treatment. The problem is how can they be added as a group when so many other people are also demanding to be included, such as heterosexuals who want the benefits without the "burden" of marriage, groups of three or more lesbians who want to be married, bigamists who want many wives, polyamorists who desire group sex (they have over 200 websites promoting the idea) plus many others? It violates the U.S. Constitution to single out homosexual couples for special treatment. The rationale for marriage has never been to help "partners." Most people, even many libertarians, agree that, despite its faults, traditional marriage has been helped over the centuries because it is the cheapest and best way ever devised to raise children.
I, along with millions of other Americans, support President Bush on the issue. If you choose to live an alternative lifestyle, don't expect society to adapt to you. You must adapt to the laws in place. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Kudos to President Bush for standing firm on his moral values.
I feel bad about saying that but your post implies some things- 1. That divorce is a good thing 2. That Bush's decision is solely based on his values 3. You mock my faith in that we would allow Bush to be Pope Thats why I said it was a pretty ignorant comment, sorry.
Well said T_J but its not just a moral thing there are legal things as well and common sense things also!
