Bush Calls for an Amendment Banning Same-Sex Nuptials (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Well, we know why he's pushing for this now. He knows his base is furious with him for his immigration stance. He needs their support, so he decides that NOW is the time to say that we should pass an amendment banning same sex marriage. How transparent. :roll:

Oh, that's right, he doesn't respond to polls. *sarcasm*

Bush Calls for an Amendment Banning Same-Sex Nuptials
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, June 3 — President Bush on Saturday urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying in his weekly radio address that marriage "cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots."

Calling marriage "the most enduring and important human institution," Mr. Bush said that a constitutional amendment was needed because "activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years."

Mr. Bush's radio address was the beginning of what White House aides had said would be a major push to support the marriage amendment, which the Senate is to begin debating in the next couple of days. The effort comes after weeks of increasingly vocal complaints from cultural conservatives that Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans abandoned their issues after relying on them to win in the 2004 elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/washington/04radio.html

 

[massive_attack]

He'll never get the support.

 

[disneydude]

Pure Republican politics.

Divert and deceive.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they want to use the law to protect the sanctity of marriage, then they should outlaw getting a divorce and having an affair too. And maybe then we can go back to punishing people for drinking on Sunday!

 

[jfuh]

Though this tactic is as transparent as can be for those of us here. However for those extremist bible thumpers this is a rally cry of support to the GOP. Disgusting how in todays day and age of the 21st century ppl can not accept each other's differences.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, Bush is an idiot.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Whatever happened to the GOP being in favor of State's rights and strict interpretation of the Constitution?

This tactic will backfire, but really, it's all they have left. That and flag burning I guess...

 

[FallingPianos]

President Bush on Saturday urged Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying in his weekly radio address that marriage "cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots."...

...Mr. Bush said in his address that the amendment would leave it up to state governments, and not the courts, whether to approve legal arrangements for same-sex couples such as civil unions.

"The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined," he said, "while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

that coward. states rights? yeah right, sinse when does Bush support states rights?

I'm glad this wont have enough support to pass.

 

[ShamMol]

that coward. states rights? yeah right, sinse when does Bush support states rights?

I'm glad this wont have enough support to pass.

It is not going to be used as actual legislation, but merely as a tatic to show where everyone lies on the matter. It won't pass, but it will weed out those who actually support such a measure from those who don't.

Bush is part of a new group of Repubs who honestly want to use the federal government to push their agenda instead of using the state capitols to do it. There is nothing wrong with what he is doing, he just realized the success that the Dems had with it and have decided to go with it. Very simple, very good tatic.

 

[FallingPianos]

It is not going to be used as actual legislation, but merely as a tatic to show where everyone lies on the matter. It won't pass, but it will weed out those who actually support such a measure from those who don't.

Bush is part of a new group of Repubs who honestly want to use the federal government to push their agenda instead of using the state capitols to do it. There is nothing wrong with what he is doing, he just realized the success that the Dems had with it and have decided to go with it. Very simple, very good tatic.

whats cowardly about it is that he is not standing for what he actually believes, even if his beliefs suck.

 

[ShamMol]

whats cowardly about it is that he is not standing for what he actually believes, even if his beliefs suck.

Umm...that didn't make sense as a response to waht I posted. I never said it was cowardly...I was saying that I think his doing it is politically smart. What did you think I meant?

 

[scottyz]

I suppose there is nothing more important for Congress to worry about than gay marriage?

 

[ShamMol]

I suppose there is nothing more important for Congress to worry about than gay marriage?

Well, it is a good move to get off of issues that they can actually do some good on and focus on ones that drives people to the polls. Politically it is very smart, but a savvy politician could call them, and probably will, on it when they are up for reelection.

 

[FallingPianos]

Umm...that didn't make sense as a response to waht I posted. I never said it was cowardly...

I'm saying its cowardly.

I was saying that I think his doing it is politically smart. What did you think I meant?

yes, and cowardly. I have no respect for politicians that compromise like that, even if it works.

 

[ShamMol]

I'm saying its cowardly.



yes, and cowardly. I have no respect for politicians that compromise like that, even if it works.

Ok, and what if he actually believes that too? I somehow believe that he thinks gay marriage should not be allowed...so theoretically, he is following his principles on this one while being politically savvy....

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, it is a good move to get off of issues that they can actually do some good on and focus on ones that drives people to the polls. Politically it is very smart, but a savvy politician could call them, and probably will, on it when they are up for reelection.

yeah, it will help them get more power, but for what? if they are willing to comprimise their values for power, whats the point of having power?

 

[ShamMol]

yeah, it will help them get more power, but for what? if they are willing to comprimise their values for power, whats the point of having power?

You have to be willing to compromise in order to keep the power. You can't just stick to your guns the entire time and hope that other people will side with you...you ahve to be willing to actually meet at a common ground. But that is my heart talking there....

They want to keep their power...the only thing they focus on while in office is keeping their power...It is sad, but what can we do but challenge them when they need it?

 

[FallingPianos]

Ok, and what if he actually believes that too? I somehow believe that he thinks gay marriage should not be allowed...so theoretically, he is following his principles on this one while being politically savvy....

its the civil unions he's comprimising on, not marriage. he's never demonstrated support for states rights so I dont believe thats his real motivation, and he doesnt support civil unions either.

 

[FallingPianos]

You have to be willing to compromise in order to keep the power. You can't just stick to your guns the entire time and hope that other people will side with you...you ahve to be willing to actually meet at a common ground. But that is my heart talking there....

my own tactic would be to not waste my time going after things that I know wont pass, and focus on things that have a chance. if I were in his position and opposed gay marriage, I would simply leave it alone, and worry about other thigns.

They want to keep their power...the only thing they focus on while in office is keeping their power...It is sad, but what can we do but challenge them when they need it?

nothing. my complaint is that we arent fighting enough. we like to blame politicians, but isnt it the people who are supposed to keep the government in check?

 

[ShamMol]

its the civil unions he's comprimising on, not marriage. he's never demonstrated support for states rights so I dont believe thats his real motivation, and he doesnt support civil unions either.

Nowhere in that article was a claim of his supporting civil unions in connection with this bill.

 

[FallingPianos]

Nowhere in that article was a claim of his supporting civil unions in connection with this bill.

the amendment that he is supporting prohibits the federal/supreme courts from getting involved with civil unions.

 

[ShamMol]

my own tactic would be to not waste my time going after things that I know wont pass, and focus on things that have a chance. if I were in his position and opposed gay marriage, I would simply leave it alone, and worry about other thigns.

Alas, that is why you are not a politician. To them, everything is to get reelected and that is why this is up...to get them reelected and to get Bush's poll numbers up.

nothing. my complaint is that we arent fighting enough. we like to blame politicians, but isnt it the people who are supposed to keep the government in check?

Yes, yes we are. The only recourse we have is to put up candidates in those districts that try to use politican stunts to win reelection...no matter how much they are an incumbent or how much money they have...Paul Hackett proved as much.

the amendment that he is supporting prohibits the federal/supreme courts from getting involved with civil unions.

Well, that is because he is supporting the state's right to do so most likely (at least publically). Also, that makes it so that it will have a better chance of passing, but you already knew that. That doesn't make him a coward...he wants his view pushed which is that gays can't marry...besides that he probably doesn't care as long as he gets his way that marriage is between a man and a woman...no more, no less.

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, that is because he is supporting the state's right to do so most likely (at least publically).

and the bold part is my point.

 

[ShamMol]

and the bold part is my point.

And my point remains that we don't know his private views are different-we only have his public ones to work off of. We know that he is anti-gay marriage and that is all. We can say that he is otherwise, but we just don't know and thus we can call it politically expedient, but we just don't know.

 

[FallingPianos]

And my point remains that we don't know his private views are different-we only have his public ones to work off of.

his actions are what reviel his anti-states-rights stance. the only times he supports states rights is when he is desperately trying to comprimise. he gladly violates them if he has the support to do so.

 

[ShamMol]

his actions are what reviel his anti-states-rights stance. the only times he supports states rights is when he is desperately trying to comprimise. he gladly violates them if he has the support to do so.

But there are many within his administration that support states rights and thus that may be where this public support for the bill also stems from. I contend though, that he is just supporting it because that is what his ideals are...that there is no gay marriage...I just don't think he cares or is bright enough to know much beyond that. His spin doctors can give him all the lines they want, but when it comes down to it, I think he just wants to ban gay marriage and besides that he doesn't care. But we have beat this horse dead methinks.