[/size]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1] President Bush (news - web sites) will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday. [/size]
[size=-1] Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election. [/size]
[size=-1] "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday." [/size]
[size=-1] Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages. [/size]
[size=-1]Renewing his push for an amendment -- despite its slim chances of success -- would be a way for Bush to reward his conservative base. The amendment would face a steep hurdle winning the needed approval of three-fourths of the states.
Here is a quote that I found that sums up my position:The real question is how DOESN'T a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage exemplfy bigotry and hatred.
President Bush said:"marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots" SFGate
If you had accused me of being against gay marriage, you would have been correct.President Bush said:I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. BrainyQuote
I beleive what Joe was trying to say is that limiting a persons rights based on Race, Religion or Sexual Orientation is "Bigotry and Hatred".What exemplifies "Bigotry and Hatred"? Those are harsh words.
Could it be that you are not listening for it?I have yet to hear a convincing anti-gay marriage argument.
+vauge said:I want to keep the traditions that our forefathers and mothers worked so hard to achieve.
I like MSR's argument about word preservation. If we can maintain the word to mean "between a man and a woman" then I will be content. If it takes an amendment to do it - I will sign.MSR said:I think that it is clear that President Bush has no desire to outlaw homosexual unions only to preserve the meaning of the word marriage.
Welcome to Debate Politics!
(nice forum concept btw, definatly a bookmarker! Your link not working, had to tweak it to get it to work.)
Could it be that you are not listening for it?
If we can maintain the word to mean "between a man and a woman" then I will be content. If it takes an amendment to do it - I will sign.
On a personal level I will not suffer. I could care less what two people do in thier own home.I guess what I'm trying to discern is how you, personally, feel you will suffer if two people you don't even know get married?
Nuk nuk... why thank you. (I thinkVague, you are my ideological friend.
Ment in jest, but very valid point!Me: Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say the bimbos who go on Fox reality shows to pick up midget husbands are taking care of that. ;-P
Seriously, I don't see what gays can do to harm morals that we straight people aren't doing ourselves. And while we're on morals, whose morals are we speaking of specifically?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?