Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriages

It seems to me that the people are already "involved in this decision" and having no trouble defining marriage, but who am I to say?

Just wait and see what happens if he gets elected. This man, as stupid as he is, is just waiting to turn our community upside down. By getting elected in November, he'll have nothing to lose for the next four years of hell. This man has to be stopped in November.

What the hell is he "troubled" by? It is high time that anti-gay crowd, particularly those who are anti-gay marriage, give some concrete reasons why they are against legal gay marriage. Enough of these vague pronouncements about "protecting" straight marriage - if Bush's marriage is so tenuous that these events could disrupt it, then he needs a marriage counselor, not an amendment.

What is needed is someone to put Bush (and others who share the hardline opinion) on the spot in a widely viewed forum and have him come up with an answer to what he is protecting, or how gay marriage somehow diminishes the relationship a straight married couple have, and then continue to hammer away at him, pounding the punk into submission until he gets it...

He probably thinks it's "icky" or something pathetic like that.

Im "troubled" by having a complete idiot for a president.

Well, as someone who also favors gay marriage, I agree Bush should be asked what he finds so troubling about the concept.

But why not ask John Kerry exactly the same question, since he also has consistently gone on record as opposing gay marriage.

I'm well aware Kerry is much stronger on gay issues overall, but if the specific question is "gay marriage," it looks to me that both candidates have taken the same stance.

Not exactly HulaBoy...Bush favors a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Kerry does not.

Not supporting gay marriage is NOT the same position as wanting actively to ban them.

Skiguy, Bush has never said he favors any constitutional amendment.

In fact, the quote that started this thread includes the following: "But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows."

I saw Bush making the statement on CNN earlier today, and that report is exactly accurate. Even though the reporters were pushing him in their questioning, he refused to endorse the constitutional amendment.

He needs to be troubled by the 50% divorce rate that's driving his precious "sanctity of marriage" into the ground. People who are against gay marriage are a walking contradiction. They say they want to protect the sanctity of marriage, yet the divorce rate is at an all time high and the latest marriage shows are The Littlest Bachelor and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance. Give me a break, if that's what they are trying to protect, they can have it for all I care. I'm just looking for the equal rights that all other Americans have.

At the White House on Wednesday, President Bush said, "I'm troubled by what I've seen" in Boston and San Francisco. But he declined to say if he would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, as conservative supporters expect him to do.

At this point, it's just a matter of time for Bush. No he hasn't come out and said it... But it's probably a forgone conclusion that's where he stands.

Kerry has gone on the record endorsing civil unions, while Bush is likely to endorse an amendment that will specifically forbid them. However, he has certainly not gone on the record supporting them. So there is a concrete difference between their positions.

shrub says:


"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."

We are less than people so we get no say so in our own behalf. We raise a voice in self defense and we are attacking the structure of American society. A Judge rules on our behalf the the judge is an activist Judge, or radical. the shrub and his cronies try to suppress civil rights and they are protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, which has yet to be defined. I'm seeing all of this first hand at the Georgia State Capitol building and am raising my voice here too. I encourage you to be heard and be seen.

Today in the NYT - pretty much says it.

Nat

ately it has seemed as if gay marriage was taking over the national policy debate. Massachusetts has been embroiled in a heated constitutional battle because of it. The presidential campaign is circling hesitantly around it. And in the last few days in San Francisco, more than 2,000 gay couples from across the country have flocked to City Hall and stood in the rain to get the marriage licenses suddenly offered to them by the city.

The Massachusetts and San Francisco events are a welcome indication that the nation is having a long-overdue discussion about the right of gay people to marry, and that the states are beginning to serve as laboratories for reform in this important area.

Americans have come a long way in a short time when it comes to gay rights. As recently as 1986, the Supreme Court rejected a claim that the Constitution protects consensual gay sex as "at best, facetious." Last year, however, the court overruled itself and struck down state sodomy laws as violating the Constitution's liberty guarantee. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy portrayed constitutional history as a forward march in which "persons in every generation can invoke" the Constitution "in their own search for greater freedom."

Gays have made significant strides in areas like employment and housing, but have faced considerably more opposition on the right to marry. There are, clearly, some people who object to any recognition of same-sex unions. But for many more, the hesitation concerns the use of the word "marriage." The uncertainty many Americans feel is reflected in the fact that poll responses on this subject vary widely, depending on the precise way in which the questions are worded.

This page fully supports the right of gay men and lesbians to marry, and we believe that in time they will have this right across the nation. But we also see a practical value in how the issue is currently unfolding. Louis Brandeis, the great Supreme Court justice, said he believed that the states should serve as social laboratories for the nation. Massachusetts and California — and Vermont, before them, with its civil unions law — are fulfilling that role right now. They have already started a national discussion of gay marriage, a very healthy thing in itself. If gay marriage takes hold in Massachusetts or California — in both states, the issue is still up in the air — it will allow the residents of slower-moving states to observe the experiment in action.

Opponents of gay marriage have been loudly calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state from recognizing gay marriages. Despite the parade of horribles they haul out, their greatest fear appears to be that giving gay men and women the right to join legally and permanently with the ones they love will work out just fine, and that the American people will see that the fears being foisted on them are unfounded.

Laura clutches her pearls over gay marriage.

Come down off your pedestal, sweetie, you'll hurt yourself.

Skiguy, you are completely wrong on what you think Bush said. At least a month or so he said he would consider an amendment change and then again said he wanted to "codify" a marriage protection amendment.

[ February 18, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

The constant refrain of "let the people decide" completely ignores the representative nature of our democracy. The people of Massachussetts chose a legislature that was unable to put a marriage defining amendment together in a couple of days. The people chose those legislators, and at the next election, if the people want an amendment, they will elect different legislators. The people of San Fransisco certainly knew what the were doing when they elected a radically liberal mayor. They don't seem terribly put out with his decision. People have spoken, they want gay marriage. There will be ample elections and platforms in which other people may voice their opininions, but behaving as if the people haven't gotten a say in this issue and process completely ignores the tremendous amount of activity on same sex marriages ever since the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled limiting marriage unconstitutional.

I love how W's surrogate, Laura Bush, says the topic of gay marriage "should be discussed by the people"
however when asked for her personal opinion on the topic she refused to disclose her opinion or "discuss it" herself.

Im troubled by the fact someone is trying to pass an amendment to DISCRIMINATE against people in this country. I thought we passes amendments to further protect people's rights (woman's suffrage, freedom for slaves, etc). Now our sitting president is troubled and moves to reduce our civil liberties.

I am troubled that marriage has even become a government issue. If marriage is so "religious" what happened to seperation of church and state? If the church and state should be seperate, should marriage not be a seperate event recognized by the state and whatever the church does on their own time is their business?

Bush's support or waffling just gets deeper and deeper on every issue. This is why he must be censured and subsequently voted out of office in November.

More issue shell game on the part of our Oil Junta.

The news today that Mush's own economic report predicted more than 2.5 million new jobs before the election and the fact that his own cabinet was "distancing" themselves from it was almost completely ignored by the national media because once again we heard Moronboy say he was "troubled" by those "activist judges."

Said report was actually signed by Forrest Gump, thus implying he actually read it, but how many here think he did - after all there are no pictures in it only a few graphs he could color in.

From now to Election Day anytime there's bad news out of Iraq or a bad economic report, this White House will comment on a social issue to distract us - gay marriage, steroids, protecting our children from seeing a tit on TV, etc. We can’t let them dictate the national debate or once again we’ll ignore the real problems facing the Nation.

Hulaboy, read this...
Link