Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[cappie]

US President George W Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Mr Bush used his weekly radio address to deliver a plea for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman.

He said the measure was needed because "activist courts" left no alternative.

An amendment stands little chance of being passed but analysts say Republicans see the issue as a vote winner in November's mid-term polls.

They say the president is seeking to switch the spotlight onto positive issues for his party in the wake of his slumping popularity - particularly over Iraq.

Opinion polls

Mr Bush said: "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people
George W Bush

Judges have recently rejected laws on traditional marriages in states such as Washington, California and New York.

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said.

However, an amendment would require two-thirds support in the House and Senate. A similar measure was defeated in 2004.

Republicans are hoping their stance on an issue that opinion polls suggest is shared by the public will boost votes in November, when they fear losing control of Congress.

A recent Gallup poll suggested 59% of Americans were opposed to validating gay marriage in law.

The Democrats accuse their rivals of applying a smokescreen.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said: "Bush Republicans would rather focus on purely divisive manoeuvres than real solutions that address the growing energy crisis."
Story from BBC NEWS:

[cappie]

A CONSTITUTIONAL ban on same-sex marriages failed to pass the US Senate but Republican leaders planned to take it up in the House, keeping a national spotlight on the divisive issue.

The 49 to 48 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, thwarting President George W. Bush and the mostly Republican senators who argued that the Constitution must be amended to prevent judges from striking down existing state-level bans on gay marriage.

Democrats said the vote was an attempt to muster conservative support ahead of the November congressional elections and divert public attention from more pressing issues like the war in Iraq that reflect poorly on Republicans.

[jezic]

what i wonder is why did he wait until now to press the issue? It really gives the democrats some credit when they talk about making it an election year issue vote. It would seem as if the Republicans are trying to woo the conservative base before the november elections.

[Socrates]

Whatever Bush's motives, people should be asking whether the policy is right or wrong. Opposing the bill on the grounds that "there are more important issues" is itself a smokescreen. And the fact that virtually all the Democrats were opposed to the bill once again shows where the Democrats' "values" truly lie.

It seems the Democrats can always be reliably counted on to support abortion and perversion, which now seem the cornerstones of their agenda.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Socrates

[heavenseeker]

well atleast he is doing something right

[cappie]

In Australia.....IN A minnow-versus-whale scenario, the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) is planning official recognition of gay couples before the Federal Government erases the enabling law.

[i]The ACT is a Territory not a state so it's like DC. It Has its own Government but can be overidden by the Federal Government[/i]

The Civil Unions Act, passed by the ACT Parliament three weeks ago, was to operate by August.

But the federal cabinet intervened on Tuesday, deciding to disallow the law because - in the words of the Prime Minister, John Howard - "we are not prepared to accept something which is a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage".

Consequently, the ACT is now in a dash to get its law active within two weeks. "This may be in defiance of the Federal Government's announcement, but we believe our law is valid," said the ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell.

Nick Henderson, 26, and Paul Nicholson, 26, plan to seize the opportunity, even though they know official recognition will last only the weeks before the Governor-General quashes the ACT law, on the advice of ministers.

The couple has been together for five years and, according to Mr Henderson, "this is about recognising our love and commitment together".

"We see our relationship as worthy of recognition in law."

Mr Henderson said the Federal Government had been duplicitous. "How could we not be cynical when the ACT amended the legislation to take account of federal objections, and the Commonwealth ignored those amendments?" he said.

The Commonwealth was not shifting. Asked if the law's disallowance would be expedited to block the Corbell strategy, a spokeswoman for the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said: "It's not a race. But the ACT is demonstrating what the Federal Government has been saying all along. It's not about gay rights but scoring a cynical political point.

"How will the ACT justify putting people through the trauma of having unions dissolved because the law is disallowed, just to make a cynical political point?"

Mr Ruddock was last night seeking advice on the matter.

Today, the ACT Parliament will ask the Governor-General to request amendments to the ACT law, rather than disallowing it.

The Greens signalled they would ask the Senate to block disallowance and the Democrats plan same-sex marriage legislation next week.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jezic' post='999927' date='Jun 7 2006, 08:39 PM']
what i wonder is why did he wait until now to press the issue? It really gives the democrats some credit when they talk about making it an election year issue vote. It would seem as if the Republicans are trying to woo the conservative base before the november elections.
[/quote]

He does have a busy schedule. Think of how many people go whinning to their bosses... imagine how bad it must be when president when you have so many people coming at you with "take care of this now" stuff.

Passing judgements based on unanswerable questions and assumptions is not the wisest thing to do.

He has been saying that marriage should be between a man and woman since he first ran. We have to push the senators via emails, calls, and snail mail to get things done.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[KatS]

[quote]He does have a busy schedule. Think of how many people go whinning to their bosses... imagine how bad it must be when president when you have so many people coming at you with "take care of this now" stuff.

Passing judgements based on unanswerable questions and assumptions is not the wisest thing to do.

He has been saying that marriage should be between a man and woman since he first ran. We have to push the senators via emails, calls, and snail mail to get things done. [/quote]

Hear hear. The timing of Bush bringing up this issue doesn't make it any less important.

True, the President has always been consistent on this issue too. And being consistent is rare in most politicians.

[Sojourner]

[img]http://www.takingdownwords.com/photos/uncategorized/060607_bi_gaymarriage.jpg[/img]

[ironmonk]

But the ship's not sinking.

Only the media zombies think it is.

Our economy is great.

Bush has done a good job, much better than slick willy.

You really should pay attention to Church teachings on priorities...
1) Human Life
2) Family Life
3) Social Justice
4) Global Solidarity

If you do not follow those priorities since they are the Church's, then you are not being loyal to the Magisterium.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1000353' date='Jun 8 2006, 10:47 AM']
But the ship's not sinking.

Only the media zombies think it is.

Our economy is great.

Bush has done a good job, much better than slick willy.

You really should pay attention to Church teachings on priorities...
1) Human Life
2) Family Life
3) Social Justice
4) Global Solidarity

If you do not follow those priorities since they are the Church's, then you are not being loyal to the Magisterium.
[/quote]


soooooooo predictable

It's really just funny

[ironmonk]

The cartoon is not funny... it's trite from a liberal that lies.

The cartoon is actually sad because some people actually believe such untruths. That they are too lazy to study or to dumb to think for themselves.

The cartoon shows a serious issue with certain people's priorities.

Predictable? I guess those of us who are loyal to the magisterium are predictable. That's like trying to call someone a "CatholicBot" and think it's an insult because they can't back their stance w/Church teachings.

Predictable is much better than flakey.

Edited June 8, 2006 by ironmonk

[Daniel9]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1000353' date='Jun 8 2006, 07:47 AM']
But the ship's not sinking.

Only the media zombies think it is.

Our economy is great.

Bush has done a good job, much better than slick willy.

You really should pay attention to Church teachings on priorities...
1) Human Life
2) Family Life
3) Social Justice
4) Global Solidarity

If you do not follow those priorities since they are the Church's, then you are not being loyal to the Magisterium.
[/quote]

I am loyal to the Magisterium because those are my priorities. And that's why the illegal, immoral war in Iraq needs to end...NOW!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1000436' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:37 PM']
The cartoon is not funny... it's trite from a liberal that lies.

The cartoon is actually sad because some people actually believe such untruths. That they are too lazy to study or to dumb to think for themselves.

The cartoon shows a serious issue with certain people's priorities.

Predictable? I guess those of us who are loyal to the magisterium are predictable. That's like trying to call someone a "CatholicBot" and think it's an insult because they can't back their stance w/Church teachings.

Predictable is much better than flakey.
[/quote]
Oh, I have no problem with people being loyal to the Magisterium; on the contrary, such loyalty is commendable.

However, I don't equate loyalty to church teaching with loyalty to a particular political ideology or party.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000375' date='Jun 8 2006, 10:19 AM']


soooooooo predictable

It's really just funny
[/quote]

I don't find your divisive ridicule of a position that many if not most other faithful Catholcis and the Bishops hold to be funny. If you disagree that is fine, but your posting of the ship thing is beyond disagreement. The cartoon is stupid. Gay Marriage bills and other items are not mutally exclusive such that the country cannot consider both issues. And contrary to what you think the gay marriage matter is important to the future of this nation. I was listening to a protestant guy on the radio this AM that actually said it well. Faith is doing what God says to do, not because it is pleasent but because God promises that the outcome will be right. Not an exact quote but the basic gist. This country needs to do what is right. Ban gay marriage for good.

Edited June 8, 2006 by thessalonian