Bush Voices Support of Amendment Banning Gay Marriage June 2, 2006
by Danny McCoy
Washington D.C. - Ending months of speculation, President George W. Bush said Thursday he will support and promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage just days before a scheduled Senate vote on the issue.
The amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House, and then would need to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures before becoming a law.
So far, that looks highly unlikely, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which on Thursday reported that supporters of the amendment are struggling to find even half of the 100-member Senate to back it, let alone the two-thirds needed.
Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat – Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson – says he will vote for it.
Republicans even closer to the Bush camp have indicated they will not support the amendment. Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay, has vocally opposed the measure.
The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly approved the amendment on May 18 in a vote along party lines that had Democrats and Republicans in a shouting patch, the Post-Intelligencer reported.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legalize such marriages in 2003. A year later, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples, which have since been revoked.
Initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin this November. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions.
"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.
A White House spokesperson said to expect the president to comment on the issue on Monday, the day before it goes to a vote in the Senate.
Copyright 2006 GayWired.com, All Rights Reserved
Join up or Log on!
You must be a member to comment on articles.
If you are already a member, log on now. If you are not
a member, Join up!
No one's suggesting that divorces actually be limited. It's about clearly defining what defense of marriage would mean.
6/5/2006 11:15 AM
Ryan
It's well and good to consider what Republicans SHOULD do if they are truly interested in saving marriage, but unfortunately, they haven't proposed limiting divorces, they've proposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. And since Republicans control the executive and legislative branches, progressive forces within the Democratic Party who are leading our fight can't control the rhetoric, they can only respond to what the Republicans offer.
I think it's foolish to talk of limiting divorces. Instead, we should focus on a common sense approach to offering gay and lesbian couples the same rights that straight couples have. America in general is supportive of giving same-sex couples the same benefits that straight couples get, and if we reframe the debate in those terms I believe we will gain a leg up.
6/5/2006 11:02 AM
Reid
If you are against this then send a letter to your congressman/woman and back up all this talk with some action.
Agree with Chris (StChris) who posted this morning. The Economist carried an OpEd piece over two years ago saying something similar. To accurately defend marriage the Republicans should legislate against divorce. And therein lies the opportunity -- turning the rhetoric in the proper direction.
How about when all the congressional and senatorial candidates start innundating us with their pamphlets, we write each one and flatly ask how they can guarantee that we (as their constituents) will have equal rights, and that they won't give into political pandering to the uber-conservatives and their hate agenda? If they can't give us an honest, direct answer, then we don't vote for them
A few comments of reaction. First, don't put your support behind anyone or any organization that is not doing something to stop this amendment. If they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
Example, I for a womans right to choose, but unless they are willing to also help fight this amendment why should I support their cause. It doesn't effect me. Not a great attitude, but it is going to take people working together to bring change.
Boycott marriages, or better yet, attend and then speak up when ask if anyone here knows a reason that the lovely couple should not join in marriage- tell them they shouldn't until everyone is allowed to marry if they choose.
Put your taxes in an escrow account for the government to have once you have all ther rights and representation of all the "first class citizens"
-again, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Do something. Now!
-Roger
6/4/2006 11:21 AM
Matthew
under normal circumstances i would never say this in regards to a President of the United States but… Fuck Him!
6/4/2006 10:50 AM
Ryan
But Karl, many MANY "popular" Republicans favor this amendment, including Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, and the big man at the top, Gee-Dubya. Simply listing a few "moderate" Republicans and asking us not to dismiss the Republican Party as anti-gay on their behalf is wrong.
The Republican Party is anti-gay as stated in their platform, and they use anti-LGBT efforts and baiting as a way to bring people to the polls for them, thus trading our rights for a few votes. It's disgraceful. There is no reason why any LGBTs should support them. If we DON'T vote against Republicans as a bloc, we're enabling them to continue their divisive politics.
Nothing is a given. Use the free long-distance on your cell phone and leave your senators a voicemail urging them to vote NO on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Speaking of puppets, just finished watching "Bush's Brain"- bringing up the gay marriage thing during mid-term elections is typical of Karl Rove. And for those of you who say we shouldn't worry about the bill passing need to remember, they thought Hitler and the Nazi party wouldn't go anywhere, and look what happened when apathy got the better of people.
Let's stop trying to further polarize the country by trying to herd everyone into one of two camps. It would be well to remember that the most popular Republicans nationally oppose this proposed amendment, including Cheney, McCain, Guliani, and Schwarzeneggar; hardly marginal figures within the party. By failing to recognize their different stand on this issue, we weaken their incentive to maintain it. Minority groups who vote monolithically for one party significantly dilute any political power they might otherwise have. Bush is sinking within the Republican Party, and his pandering to the Christian right is a big part of it. This is an opportunity to further marginalize the Christian right in the party and we shouldn't blow it by baselessly stereotyping everyone else in that party. Finally, this amendment will NEVER even come CLOSE to passing, so why waste our energy worrying about it?
6/4/2006 6:29 AM
Jake
It didn't pass in 2004, so what the hell makes him think it'll pass in 2006?
It died in the senate 48-50 in 2004, so it's definitely not going to get a dozen or so more votes in order to pass two years later.
The constitutional marriage ban is not going to pass, especially with popular Republicans like McCain opposing the amendment (if he still does, which he did in 2004).
So it appears in light of all this Bush activity that women can now marry snakes (which can't say "i do" mind you). Not only did she marry a snake, but the reptile had a metal stand in. I can tell it was in love and ok with the union.
Before we all drown ourselves in spite for Bush, give a call to your senators to make sure that this thing actually *does* get defeated. We'd all look pretty silly if it didn't, and it's much more productive than coming up with a more clever way to express your dislike of the president.
I'm glad to see that this will fail again. Perhaps the public will get the idea that this is NOT AN ISSUE. There is no sanctity to marriage. It's purely *pragmatic*.
I'd also like to point out yet ANOTHER hypocrisy point of the NeoCons: they want to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave the issue of abortion back to the states BUT, they don't want to leave gay marriage to the states. GO FEDERALISM!
Bush Voices Support of Amendment Banning Gay Marriage (6-2-2006)
How very cynical to focus on an issue of such importance, because we all know it’s truly truly what this country needs right now before, energy independence, privacy rights and the war, affordable healthcare, the minim wage increase or the sinking economy (on-and-on with out stop). It is NOT comforting to know that when Hitler focused on the *Jews* instead of everything else critical to Germany the silly people blindly followed. Are we going to repeat 1930’s Germany? Well I say Hile Bush! The fourth reich has begun - Hile bush! Arugh... Barf...
This president is an evil idiot who may even be psychotic. After all, we medicate or lock up most people who hear God talking to them....they're hallucinating and/or have delusions of grandeur. And the Christian Wrong elects him president. It's amazing how our country could fall to this level. But we cannot give up. We much replace the congress and state legislatures with thinking women and men...and not ones who participate in or are heavily influenced by cults.
When I came out to my sister she said, "Thats cool. It doesn't affect me or my children, so go for it." Is it really that much to ask that ALL str8 people have this level common sense? Umm gee, maybe we could, oh I dunno, work to fight hunger or anything that constitutes an ACTUAL problem.
My father fought in Vietnam twice and then in Desert Storm for this. I mean really... gay marriage is allowed in South Africa. We're behind South Africa!! Am I the only one who is angry about this?
6/2/2006 11:10 PM
Kyle
By bringing up the issue just months before the congressional election (AGAIN) he is re-energizing the christian conservative coalition... no, it wont ever pass... it just gets breeders to the polls...
The article really should read, "Ending his minutes long span of not discriminating, making an ass of himself or being re-taught to tie his shoe, George Bush announced he will promote and campaign for a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. While walking away, Mr. Bush then tripped on his untied shoe lace and wet himself." He is obviously a retard and his poor attempts to be Mr. Cool again will fail...just like I'm sure his dick does.
6/2/2006 9:55 PM
Kevin
How much you wanna bet that this will not raise his poll numbers one iota? I have a feeling that the administration knows this too - I actually have a theory about this. I think that the Bush administration is working with the Republican party to try and keep control of congress at the expense of Bush's popularity. I think that the 30% of people that still approve of Bush are basically his base - the more moderate/not-neo-conservative Republicans are fed-up with him and want change. The Republican party will try to say that change is possible without voting for Democrats by having Bush move as far right as possible on a variety of issues. Come November, Republican congressmen can then distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular Bush and keep their seats without having to actually change their own agendas much. It might even work - I really hope the Dems are on-the-ball this year!
Another thing to know, congress heard from the right wing 10 times for every one of us. Please get off your ass and call/e-mail/write/torture your senators. If you have a good one, thank him/her and let them know that you support him/her.
the only way Bush wins is if we don't try- Any minority isn't powerless.
6/2/2006 5:11 PM
Chris
AMEN GARY! This president is a small minded, christian conservative puppet. Gay marriage doesnt hurt ANYONE! No straight couple will ever be affected by it. This angers me to no end. I dont have any immediate plans to get married, but someday when i find the right guy, I want the same rights as any other American citizen. I present it the same way I presented it to my mother when I came out and she asked me to change.
"If you woke up tomorrow and the majority of the world was gay, and being straight was considered morally wrong and was shunned by society, and the government...would you turn gay?"
I am glad he is following through with this... I already knew he was the worst American president yet, but now he can be officially marked as the man who tried & FAILED to write discrimination into the constitution. What a stain.
