Priorities priorities. Might see an uptick in his approval from conservatives who feel he isnt conservative enough liking him again. Good to see Congress, knowing something wont pass, push it anyway and waste time.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

 

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

 

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the amendment on May 18 along party lines after a shouting match between a Democrat and the chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. He bid Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, "good riddance" after Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment and his intention to leave the meeting.

 

Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.

 

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

 

Those poll results don't reflect how people might feel about amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples.

 

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions, with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.

 

Bush benefited as religious conservatives turned out to vote and helped him defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In Ohio, an initiative rejecting the legality of civil unions won handily. The same state tipped the election to Bush.

 

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

 

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

 

Opponents of the amendment objected to Bush promoting a measure they said amounts to discrimination.

 

"This is fundamentally both a civil rights and religious freedom issue and the president's position of supporting amending the constitution is just dead wrong," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "This is simply to give ammunition to the so-called religious right just to show that the president is still with them."

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/bus...e.ap/index.html

Thank God we're focusing on the "issues". Nice work, DC. Asshats.

wow,

 

lets bring this "out of the closet" just in time for the elections.

 

Didnt we play this game 2 years ago?

wow,

 

lets bring this "out of the closet" just in time for the elections.

 

Didnt we play this game 2 years ago?

And its worked the past 8 years. :banghead

Obviously just an election year ploy trying to force democrats to either support something that probably contradicts previous stances or vote against something important to a majority of people in the US. All so the Republicans have "ammunition" for election season.

 

And the funny thing about all this is Bush seems to truly believe that civil unions should be recognized for gays...

 

I still don't understand all the fuss about protecting a single stupid word. Especially on the federal level where the only real application for it is citizenship and income taxes, and there's already federal law prohibiting the US government from recognizing same sex unions for those things. Huge waste of time and energy all around.

this should be a state by state issue not a federal one

this should be a state by state issue not a federal one

 

 

As long as it doesn't ban individual states from approving gay marraige for their own purposes its fine. There are federal issues involved with marraige (automatic citizenship, tax levels, etc). The federal government has a right to determine if such things would be recognized for those benefits, and if they stick to that, it's fine. Morally reprehensible, but fine.

 

But it would be completely wrong for the federal government to ban all states from recognizing them for state or local benefits/protections.

Good!

 

gay marriage :thumbdown

 

The #1 thing I don't believe in.

Good!

 

gay marriage :thumbdown

 

The #1 thing I don't believe in.

 

 

Personally, I think all marraige should be banned anyway

I have zero problem with gay marriage.

 

It has no effect on me whatsoever.

 

fyatuk's previous statements are pretty much dead on.

I have zero problem with gay marriage.

 

It has no effect on me whatsoever.

 

fyatuk's previous statements are pretty much dead on.

 

I really don't see how it would destroy society. If they can't agree on allowing marriage, then just approve civil unions with the appropriate benefits. It really boils down to that one word in the end.

I really don't see how it would destroy society. If they can't agree on allowing marriage, then just approve civil unions with the appropriate benefits. It really boils down to that one word in the end.

 

 

Eventually anyway. There are some problems, such as Texas now, which forbids gay marraige and refuses to recognize any union similar to marraige. It's not only a Constitutional Amendment here, but a Bill of Rights Amendment. In Texas a Bill of Rights Amendment cannot be overturned without invalidating the entire Constitution, period. Which could lead to some really interesting side effects down the road...

Good!

 

gay marriage :thumbdown

 

The #1 thing I don't believe in.

 

 

i heard bush is all for shooting stray dogs and believes midget porn will help the war effort in iraq.

 

*waits for wildmarlinman to jump on that bandwagon*

Good!

 

gay marriage :thumbdown

 

The #1 thing I don't believe in.

 

 

That's at the top of your list of things you're opposed to?? That's your #1 worry?

I have zero problem with gay marriage.

 

It has no effect on me whatsoever.

 

fyatuk's previous statements are pretty much dead on.

 

I really don't see how it would destroy society. If they can't agree on allowing marriage, then just approve civil unions with the appropriate benefits. It really boils down to that one word in the end.

 

After the Gay marriage is dealt with they will move onto gay adoption in the next set of elections. And so on and so on for things to piss off middle america and get them out to vote.

 

plus this aimed at ripping up certain groups primary democrats traditionally like catholics

I would hope that gay marriage won't be enough to distract the public from real problems.

this should be a state by state issue not a federal one

 

i agree , many hot button issues abortion , gun rights etc should also be state issues.

I would hope that gay marriage won't be enough to distract the public from real problems.

 

Yeah right.

It's real comforting to see our government taking care of the important things!

I really don't see how it would destroy society. If they can't agree on allowing marriage, then just approve civil unions with the appropriate benefits. It really boils down to that one word in the end.

 

 

Eventually anyway. There are some problems, such as Texas now, which forbids gay marraige and refuses to recognize any union similar to marraige. It's not only a Constitutional Amendment here, but a Bill of Rights Amendment. In Texas a Bill of Rights Amendment cannot be overturned without invalidating the entire Constitution, period. Which could lead to some really interesting side effects down the road...

 

The Texas Constitution needs to be blown up and re-written anyway, though thats a different story.

 

 

Either allow it for any two people to marry regardless of sex or allow it for none to marry.

 

 

Married couples get specific benefits that non married couples get. Its simply not right for two people to not get those benefits simply because they are not of different sexes. That in and of itself is blatent discrimination.

There's nothing like a view that allows you to be a bigot. The fact that our president, hell many of them, have been to unevolved as to not advance the thought about gay marriage such as "who gives a sh*t." I honestly believe there's something fundamentally unAmerican about banning gay marriage.

 

Telling someone they can't do something because they're different isn't freedom.

My problem is that most of the people who are for gay marriage talk about anti-gay marriage people like they're cavemen.

My problem is that most of the people who are for gay marriage talk about anti-gay marriage people like they're cavemen.

 

And anti-gay marriage people don't consider gay people to be inferior people, apparently.

My problem is that most of the people who are for gay marriage talk about anti-gay marriage people like they're cavemen.

 

 

Well, education is the key.

 

And to be honest, most people aren't educated at all. It's still a taboo.

 

I consider people who are anti-gay marriage to BE cavemen.

 

 

My problem is that most of the people who are for gay marriage talk about anti-gay marriage people like they're cavemen.

 

And anti-gay marriage people don't consider gay people to be inferior people, apparently.

 

This cuts exactly to the heart of the matter.

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?