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.

snip

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."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/20030730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage


So Bush is equating homosexuality with sinning

real smart w... but at least he said what he really thinks and we all know for sure.(like we didn't anyway)

Hey Mr Hot Milky Loads says that the natural home of gays and Lesbians is the Nazi Party!

C'mon Andy, still lusting for Der Führer as Shannon Doherty does?

no surprise...it's standard/traditional Christian doctrine

...have to abide by Christian dictates within the privacy of their own home...oh hell, that son of a bitch only pays attention to God when He's telling him something he already wants to hear. He sure as hell didn't listen to Jesus in his march to war, or in his greed, or his giveaways to corporate criminals...

just that it's what you'd expect Bush (and most Americans) to say

the throats of us Liberal Christians.

since Bush is obviously not following any christian ideologies that Jesus practiced some 2000 years.

I find it disgusting that anyone could refer to Bush and the ilks like him as Christians since they are doing absolutely nothing that represents true Christianity. They simply are using people's faith in order to scare them into the thought of "hell" if we do wrong. This was NEVER a message given by Jesus himself.

Living proof that Bush is NOT a true Christian: Right before the war, a group of church leaders including those of the United Methodist Church, Bush's claimed form of faith, wanted to meet with Bush to discuss why war was wrong. Bush REFUSED to see them.

A good Christian man would want to meet and hear the side from those who's faith he follows. The fact that he denied his own from the Methodist church was horrible. If Methodists practiced excommunication then they should give Bush the boot!

you just love the way fundamentalists are cafeteria Christians.

That's for a priest or a minister or a rabbi or an imam. Not an elected (oops, appointed) official.

Nothing this chimp does surprises me anymore.

He's supposed to be the POTUS, not the High Priest.

Howard Dean For America

:grr:
Sorry, but that's about all I can come up with to respond.

no one has to worry about Bu$h being unfaithful to Laura because after all that Alcohol and drugs he probably can't even think about it anymore. Republicans get off on money, not other people, anyway.

Since Pat has all is diamond mines there and is close friends with Chucky Taylor.

that Bush hasn't got a log in his eye, is that he has his head up his ass.
Someone should tell him not to comment on what's going on around him when the only thing his eyeballs can see is the inside of his own bowels.

LOL!!

... I think he's equating being alive and breathing with sinning. "I am mindful we're ALL sinners..."

But that aside, who the fuck taught this man how to speak English? "...when they GOT a log in their own"?!? Lordy.

Beam me the fuck up, scotty.

why is it that Democrats don't want to say that?

guess I'm moving to Canada if I ever want to get legally hitched!

First of all, I'm writing my representatives and giving them an earful.

this is important

of protecting "State's Rights"

Why this sudden move to federalize this? DOMA already does that.

I guess, now that he's realizing that the economy is not gonna help him win the next election, he's pandering to the ever shriller base of religious right.

:puke:

They only support states rights when it suits them.

as far as I know.

They only need 2/3 of house and senate or 3/4 of states.

But there is no way either is happening; 2/3 of the senate includes a full third of the democrats, which is a 'never' and 3/4 of the states just isn't happening on something this divisive.

To the actual issue, neither state nor federal government should be able to define marriage, it is a purely religious ceremony and as such any legal whatnot is unconstitutional by the establishment clause.

But whatever.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.

But Bush probably needs to get one more radical right winger to join Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. That is why it is so crucial for the Democrats to fight his far right judicial nominees. They will probably try to overturn Roe v. Wade and god knows what else as well.

Dear Representative Lantos:

I am writing out of concern for comments that President Bush made today regarding gay marriage. I strongly disagree with his call to codify the legal description of marriage as between a man and a woman only. As a gay man, I feel that this discriminates against me on the most basic levels.

I am asking you to oppose any attempt to define marriage as between a man and a woman, ignoring those gays and lesbians in permanent, loving and stable relationship who would wish to legalize their relationship through marriage and all of its legal benefits.



I'm sending the same letter to Boxer and Feinstein

to live in a country with such hatred written out explicitly in it's constitution.

Cause that's what it boils down to, making hatred of homosexuals official US policy.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

Snip:
From a civil rights standpoint, the correctness of gay marriage is obvious. To forbid the status to couples in possession of matching genitals, when the complementary-genitalia crowd is welcome at the altar, denies a class of citizens equality under the law. As long as marriage exists, the status must be open to all adults straight, G, L, B, T, Q, or not sexually connected at all. A strong argument being made on behalf of the Massachusetts plaintiffs is that the current law violates the state constitution's declaration that "all people are born free and equal."

But many gay marriage advocates want more than legal freedom and equality. Understandably, they want what the state confers on their straight friends' relationships: sentimental and moral validation. Vermont's Freedom to Marry Task Force pronounced civil unions a "bitter compromise"—and not just because the law won't affect Social Security or federal taxes. To win fence-sitters' votes, the bill's authors retained all of marriage's rights but silenced its religious resonance. For instance, where a marriage is solemnized (the church organ swells), a CU is certified (a bureaucrat's stamp thuds). This dispassion seemed to add insult to the substantial injury of exclusion from the privileged institution. As Beth Robinson, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Baker, put it, "Nobody writes songs about registered partnerships."

Snip:
In Vermont, his words were borne out. Shortly after passage of the law, a coalition of liberal clergy implied that same-sex married people, like straight ones, are more godly than couples in unofficial unions: married gays, they wrote, "exemplify a moral good which cannot be represented by so-called registered partnership." And legitimacy is more than symbolic. As soon as the law passed, the University of Vermont announced it would no longer grant health benefits to gay and lesbian employees' domestic partners unless they got legally hitched. Straight domestic partners, because they had the option of marriage, never were eligible for these benefits; nor were other cohabiters.

Just as the Supreme Court's recognition of the "dignity" of private gay and lesbian sex won't help the street hustler or the backroom tryster from being hassled by the cops, gay marriage won't help the leather queen. It could even leave these outliers more vulnerable, as wedded homosexuals cease to identify as sexual outlaws.

On edit:
Maybe this is why the state should provide equal protection, benefits, etc. to ALL people, single or not. Let churches have 'marriage', the rest of us can have tax-supported benefits.

... for reasons I think should be obvious, the state can't (or rather, shouldn't) do a heck of a lot about the potential "religious resonance" of a gay union -- only individual religions can deal with that. If you're gay and Catholic, for example, I feel bad for you that the Pope doesn't approve of your partnership ... but you need to either take it up with him, or seriously contemplate if you ought to be a Catholic given that disagreement of beliefs. Even where it might be considered a humanitarian act, the state doesn't have any more business telling individual churches they must sanction marriages than the 700 Club has trying to dictate what our schools teach about history and science.

So, politically, I'd work as hard as possible to help homosexuals obtain that legal freedom and equality -- but the sentimental and moral validation is something they're going to have to achieve on their own. We can't just win it for them in the legislature. :-(

People should get equal rights, and coming together to make a union between two intelligent individuals should be NOONE's BUSINESS!! Period!

That sounds like you just raised the bar high for both gays AND straights.

not surpised you said it :hi:

If the religions feel that marriage is a "holy" union, fine. Let EVERY ONE get their "civil" union licenses and take them to the church for the blessing/ceremony.
But my point earlier is that WE, the state, should be providing the benefits that accrue through "coupling" to each individual. Then "coupling", whether "holy" or "civil" can be an informed choice rather than a need.

Is it a male or female?

As for the government involving itself in marriage. I think it is time for it to get out of it.

Why?? What was the purpose of the government supporting marriage? It wasn't always authorized and why should it be now.

Considering that laws have been created to facilitate the governments interest for marriages it is now not necessary. If there are some situations that have not been legislated then it is time to do so.

Was the purpose of marriage for the protection of the children?

Common-law marriage was originally covered years ago and did not require a license. Why not now?

In Germany... I believe that marriages by the church was not required to be filed with the state until about 1871. Before that?? The church kept the records in their parish/church and was not forwarded to the government or any other authority.

Just another example of a biggot finding some way to pander to the prejudice ... their own or others... even when it's in regard to political action on the basis of religion.
Disgusting.

But I am shocked Bush is such a coward he won't tell us what he REALLY thinks. I'm sure his ultra-conservative spewings would make Santorum look like Tinky-Winky if that would happen.

But Bush must feed us his compassionate conservatism BS yet do all in his power to be as un-compassionate as humanly possible.

I was too keen on the 2nd act of the movie and the 3rd act was kinda a fun part, but the first act really makes you think about why we need to create equality with the gay and lesbian communities.

Like the first "If These Walls Could Talk" (ITWCT) movie (made by HBO) the movie focuses on one house and three different generations of what has happened in that house. The first ITWCT movie was about 3 women from different eras who had to deal with being faced with an unwanted pregnancy. The second movie followed the same premise - one house and three different eras with the women that lived in them, but this time we were dealing with women who were lesbians.

The first act was just incredible!! The era was in the late 1950s and Vanessa Redgrave played a woman who's partner had just died. The nephew of Vanessa's late partner showed up with his wife and since all the property was in the deceasesed name, poor Vanessa lost everything. The nephew just booted Vanessa out on the street with nothing. (http://us.imdb.com/Details?0206036)

Today's Gay & Lesbian couples are much more atune to planning their estates these days, but personally I don't see what the big deal is with giving G&L's the right to marry and the rights to the same life, health and death benefits that straights have.

No one is asking George or any of these uptight neo-cons to take up homosexuality. Heck they don't even have to make friends with them if they don't want too. But that doesn't mean they have the rights to spit upon these people. Live and let live is the good Christian motto here, one that Bush obviously doesn't really think much about.

In his eye? I don't know. But this guy is such a sight, trying to appeal to everyone at the same time.

when we all know that cheney's daughter is queer, and that the only people who still care about what the Chimp says about marriage are his narrow little dittomonkey worshippers who already hate us anyway.

DOMA is as far as they'll ever go with this (assuming we don't go into 100% nazi mode after 04) and with the canadian ruling, it'll be quite hard for states, employers, and eventually the feds to deny the legal contract that is an option up there.

i, as a lesbian unfortunate enough to have wasted 6 years of life in marriage to a man, personally wish our kind would just drop this issue, or attack from a more sensible position. the state has *no business* regulating what is essentially a religious practice, and the only time a relationship should matter to the gov't is with respect to property and taxes.

i also think focusing on gay marriage takes us away from celebrating what is a great part of our community, the freedom from xtian, patriarchal, restrictive sexual practices that put all the eggs into the basket of reproductive monogamous partnership. c'mon y'all- how many of you are always and only interested in monogamy? were you always this way? when i came out i greatly enjoyed the newfound freedom of letting it all hang out, so to speak.

partnership and love are by definition individual, private affairs of the heart. they cannot be legislated, or enforced by one body of people with beliefs that are different than others. there are soooo many other important issues for our community to deal with, and if we really want to "protection" a piece of paper grants our relationships, there are plenty of churches, synagogues, and free-lance whatevers that will give us one. and now vermont and canada as well.

let's drop this and move on to real, full equal rights in *all* ways, not just this one little thing.

(sorry for the anti-marriage rant, no slight to those who believe in it intended)

n/t

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

"On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

WTF!!!!

Shrub, you complete total ignorant arrogant asshole!!!! You represent the people, not your own personal psychological defects. You are EXACTLY the person who has to compromise - you must set aside your petty fetishes until we vote your ass out of town. (again.)

n/t

My wife of 38 yrs just gave me a tearfull wet one when she learned that we will now be codified. Oh the years of shame we endured. Finally to have our union recognized and codified and by none other than the greatest president of all time. It just doesn't get any better than that.

I really do. Honest!

of all the ways President Flubya should get the log out of his OWN eye (liar, hater, cheater, homophobe, fake Christian, military deserter, Mr. Hubris, etc. etc.) before getting on his high friggin' horse with everyone else ... he makes my face purple with rage!

Who died and made him God? We didn't even elect him PRESIDENT, for pity's sake.

I want the Fab 5 from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to go over to the White House and make over this jackass. That would have to be a year-long project ... they'd have to find a way to put a little love in the evil Resident's heart. And they'd have to FIND his heart first.

Seriously ... he and his Fundie friends are getting more dangerous by the day. There's the gay marriage issue ... and Tom DeLay and his allegedly biblically based claim that the Israelis need to keep the land he believes God assigned them, so that the Rapture and all the other Last Days fun and festival will happen according to Fundie plan.

We must get the Puggies out of power, or whole world gonna fall down go boom. No question.

I believe that the Constitution says nothing about marriage law - therefore it is left to the states. Why is it that Conservatives are all for states' rights until some states start doing things they don't approve of? If the Federal government is going to start defining marriage they are going to be getting into community property laws, divorce law, child custody/visitation rights issues, etc. Is that really going to be beneficial to the institution of marriage in the U.S.? I doubt it.