Bush, Kerry Differ on 'Choice' of Homosexuality

[Schweddy]

Source: Yahoo News

TEMPE, Ariz. (Reuters) - [size=-1] President Bush (news - web sites) and Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), who both oppose gay marriage, disagreed Wednesday on whether the issue should be left up to states and offered differing answers on whether a person could choose to be homosexual.
[/size] [size=-1] In their third presidential debate, devoted to domestic issues, Massachusetts Sen. Kerry cited Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s lesbian daughter Mary in arguing that sexual orientation was not a matter of individual choice and he said states have shown they are capable of managing their own marriage laws. [/size]

[size=-1] Bush, who supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he was unsure whether a person could choose to be homosexual and that an amendment was needed to ensure that the issue of marriage does not end up "being defined by courts." [/size]

Kerry also said that the states are doing a fine job of it. If they were, why is it when they vote OVERWELMINGLY by 78% to ban gay marraige or even civil unions - the courts throw them out?

State District Judge William Morvant ruled Oct. 5 that the Louisiana amendment, which was overwhelming approved by 78 percent of voters Sept. 18, was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because the provision had more than one purpose — banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions. more...

BTW, that was a low blow on Kerry's behalf of even mentioning Cheneys daughter.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

And would it have been a low blow if the shoe was on the other foot?

Aside from that. . .When has it EVER been a good idea to ammend the constitution in a fashion that limits rights? Name one time that a limitation has been put in place that it worked out better for the people.

 

[Schweddy]

And would it have been a low blow if the shoe was on the other foot?.

Absolutely.
Traditionally and ethically members of the family are not mentioned in debates, commericals, or in campaign speaches.

When has it EVER been a good idea to ammend the constitution in a fashion that limits rights? Name one time that a limitation has been put in place that it worked out better for the people.

Good question, going to have to put more thought into it.
Unfortunatly, this appears to have been lip service to Christians.

 

[heyjoeo]

This constitutional amendment was just to get the hardcore Christian right. I would be surprised if he continues it further, and if he did, I would be deeply disturbed. The Constitution of the United States should NEVER be used to limit ANY rights. Not only that, its the STATES decision to recognize marriage.

 

[liberal1]

I agree with you completely. This request has only made it because of all the Christians that have supported forging people to be the same and have everybody what their version of "normal" is.

 

[liberal1]

Isn't my car avatar cool? I can't get over it.

 

[heyjoeo]

Good question, going to have to put more thought into it.
Unfortunatly, this appears to have been lip service to Christians.

Then the bastard decided to reopen discussion about it. More respect lost for Bush.