Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution

[numediaman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24CND-GAY.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — President Bush said today he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, declaring that such a measure was the only way to protect the status of marriage between man and woman, which he called "the most fundamental institution of civilization."

In an announcement fraught with social, legal and political implications, Mr. Bush urged Congress to act on the amendment quickly and send it on to the state legislatures. Quick action is essential, he said, to bring clarity to the law and protect husband-and-wife marriages from a few "activist judges."

"The voice of the people must be heard," Mr. Bush said in a brief White House appearance.

Two-thirds of each house of Congress would have to approve the proposed amendment. It would then have to be approved by at least three-fourths of the state legislatures, or 38, to become part of the Constitution.

"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly," Mr. Bush said. "The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance."

Mr. Bush's announcement had been expected. It is sure to be welcomed by his conservative backers, many of whom had been urging him to speak out.

"We are delighted the president has stepped forward on this issue and his announcement serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice, which describes itself as an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law.

But the president's remarks were immediately denounced by people on the other side, even though Mr. Bush insisted today that the amendment he favored would not undermine tolerance and respect for all individuals.


You don't want to hear what I have to say about this President.

[mactastic]

People are going to look back on the speech Dubya gave today with the same disgust that we now look back at segregationists and the speeches they gave in another time. Sure hope it was worth it for the Christian right votes he's going after with his actions.

[3rdpath]

this administration needs to embrace a little more and protect a little less...

[IJ Reilly]

It's wedge issue time. Remember, he's a uniter, not a divider...

[krossfyter]

While not naming the Musgrave amendment, Bush said he supported a provision that would leave states free to set up "legal arrangements other than marriage." -WND

[mactastic]

Why do I get the feeling that this issue will be hammered until election day, then conviently shelved? In other words, I don't see Bush actually wanting to expend political capital trying to get the necessary support to make the amendment a reality, but I do see him wanting to use the issue to get his base out in force come November. Maybe I'm just being too cynical, and Dubya really does care what consenting adults do in private but that would (SHOULD) go against every conservative bone in his body.

[zimv20]

i agree, this is completely an election year political ploy. though if it gains enough momentum to pass on its own, i'm sure bush wouldn't complain.

i can almost hear the conversations w/ rove: "should we capture UBL now, or trot out the amendment?" "we should save the UBL card"

[pseudobrit]

To Congress & Mr. Bush:

Don't you have a budget to balance?

Invaded nations to clean up?

Get to doing some real work, you lazy, stupid ****ing idiots.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Since when did being married have anything to do with gays? now all of a sudden they want to push this issue because morality has declined in western civilization to this point. I think the saddest part is we have to tell all these judges what the definition of being married is along with crazy mayors from a crazy town from a crazy state. Bush needs an issue to deflect his poor record and the gays have given it to him. marriage has been for husband and wife for thousands of years and now you want it to mean something else?

[vniow]

Must...resist....smartass...comment...

[wwworry]

Originally posted by krossfyter
While not naming the Musgrave amendment, Bush said he supported a provision that would leave states free to set up "legal arrangements other than marriage." -WND

from what you are saying then it sounds like he is saying states CAN have civil unions which have the same legal rights as marriage and he is not saying the govt. will outlaw a church from declaring a couple "married"

so in essence this is a constitutional amendment to "protect" a word. How wonderful is that. :confused:

He wants to set up divisions between people because of his poor record. The classic wedge issue.

Perhaps we could keep this thread limited to the political implications of the amendment because the moral implications are being discussed elsewhere. (like that'll happen)

The closest amendment like this one has to be prohibition. Since when did the bill of rights become the bill of rights for some people and not others?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Marriage has been for husband and wife for thousands of years and now you want it to mean something else?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you owned the copyright on the definition of marriage. Would you mind terribly if some other people--who are not you and will never be you--used it? Because they would like to get married now. You don't have to be one of them, you don't have to officiate, you don't even have to be present. But obviously they are going to need your permission, O lofty majority.

Thanks. You're showing real heart. ;)

[mactastic]

For much of those thousands of years marriage also meant forced or arranged marriages, as well as marriages where the man was the dominating figure and the woman was suposed to submit to his will. How about we call that the definition of marriage? Why is it the 2004 definition that counts? Why not the 1304 one? or the 1904 one? Are we that much better than those who came before us?

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by mactastic
For much of those thousands of years marriage also meant forced or arranged marriages, as well as marriages where the man was the dominating figure and the woman was suposed to submit to his will. How about we call that the definition of marriage? Why is it the 2004 definition that counts? Why not the 1304 one? or the 1904 one? Are we that much better than those who came before us?

It also meant polygamy or polyandry. What about those?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Since when did being married have anything to do with gays? now all of a sudden they want to push this issue because morality has declined in western civilization to this point. I think the saddest part is we have to tell all these judges what the definition of being married is along with crazy mayors from a crazy town from a crazy state. Bush needs an issue to deflect his poor record and the gays have given it to him. marriage has been for husband and wife for thousands of years and now you want it to mean something else?

Hey! I'm from that "crazy" town, in that "crazy" state, and support that "crazy" mayor! I wish a few mayors in southern states had been willing to stand up against segregation like Newsom is standing up against discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Oh, and by the way Dont Hurt Me, I'm not willing to accept the idea that same sex couples wishing to express their love through marriage is an example of the "decline of western civilization." If it is then we need more in the way of a decline.

At least we agree on the reasons Dubya has seized on this issue.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
To Congress & Mr. Bush:

Don't you have a budget to balance?

Invaded nations to clean up?

Get to doing some real work, you lazy, stupid ****ing idiots.
What he said.

[zimv20]

i've been perusing the amendments. with some procedural exceptions, all but one of the amendments either guarantee personal freedoms* or limit the federal govt's power.

the only exception still in force is XVI, granting congress the right to collect income taxes.

and now we have this proposed amendment, which for the first time ever explicitly limits the rights of a subset of the population.

breaking new ground, and in a shameful way.

* except slave owners, traitors and former presidents, and obviously, amendment XVIII (prohibition), but it was repealed.

[krossfyter]

okay so whats wrong with having gays officialy hooking up ... with benefits and all by using another term??? instead of marriage... have it named ... what is that name ..... civil union? wheres the harm in that? please help me to see how this is wrong... really... im not all that versed on this *****.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by zimv20
i've been perusing the amendments. with some procedural exceptions, all but one of the amendments either guarantee personal freedoms* or limit the federal govt's power.

the only exception still in force is XVI, granting congress the right to collect income taxes.

and now we have this proposed amendment, which for the first time ever explicitly limits the rights of a subset of the population.

breaking new ground, and in a shameful way.

* except slave owners, traitors and former presidents, and obviously, amendment XVIII (prohibition), but it was repealed.

There was a great discussion on NPR today with some Constitutional lawyers. They pointed out that this amendment would directly contradict the 14th:

14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The legal scholars also added that the courts have interpreted "life, liberty, or property" to include marriage. So people can't be denied equal protection under the laws, and this includes the right to marry, they said.

Of course, they also said that if the Constitution is amended then the courts will just have to reconcile the two amendments as best they can. But I wonder if you could make a case that the very attempt to pass such an amendment is unconstitutional. Certainly you could make a moral case, if not a legal one.

[IJ Reilly]

Lawrence Tribe made an interesting observation on the NewsHour this evening. He noted that this would be the first time in history that the Constitution had been amended to restrict rights instead of to expand them.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by krossfyter
okay so whats wrong with having gays officialy hooking up ... with benefits and all by using another term??? instead of marriage... have it named ... what is that name ..... civil union? wheres the harm in that? please help me to see how this is wrong... really... im not all that versed on this *****.

what you're speaking of falls into the " seperate but equal" argument. from a u.s. historical perspective...it doesn't work, not to mention-i believe it's against the law.

also, from a historical perspective...interacial marriage was illegal until the late 1940's...some compared the prospect as analogous to people marrying monkeys? pretty horrible.

but to flip things around...what's the harm in calling the union of gays
" marriage"? i just don't see the harm. i'm married and don't feel threatened in the least...

[zimv20]

gary bauer was on the tv tonight being interviewed by ted koppal. mr. bauer claimed that not adopting the amendment would lead to legalized polygamy.

he also claimed bush isn't doing this for political reasons at all. ted was flabbergasted.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Lawrence Tribe made an interesting observation on the NewsHour this evening. He noted that this would be the first time in history that the Constitution had been amended to restrict rights instead of to expand them.

i'm crying because it seems you didn't read my post. CRYING.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by zimv20
gary bauer was on the tv tonight being interviewed by ted koppal. mr. bauer claimed that not adopting the amendment would lead to legalized polygamy.

he also claimed bush isn't doing this for political reasons at all. ted was flabbergasted.

Yes it would. Banning it is religious discrimination.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm crying because it seems you didn't read my post. CRYING.

Well Lawrence Tribe said it. That's additional information.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Awimoway
Well Lawrence Tribe said it. That's additional information.
CRYING

[pseudobrit]

To Congress:

It's been awhile since you've renamed any food in your cafeteria.

If you're going to waste our time pursuing petty, vindictive, hateful chicken**** causes, please limit them to your lunch menu.

Leave our Constitution alone.

[numediaman]

Actually, this wouldn't be the first time that the Constitution has been amended to take away rights. In 1917 Congress passed, and two years later the states ratified, the 18th Amendment (outlawing booze). Of course, that amendment was repealed by the 23rd Amendment. (By the way, the 23rd Amendment, while repealing prohibition, made illegal the shipping of alcohol between states where one of the states prohibits it. This is why I have never taken a job in Missouri or other states -- I wouldn't be able to ship in wine!)

I have yet to hear a rational arguement in favor of this amendment. All the pundits on TV in favor of this continue to argue that the "institution" of marriage is under attack and is being destroyed. How?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
CRYING

Somebody give this guy a hankie already.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Somebody give this guy a hankie already.

nah, i slept it off

:-)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by krossfyter
okay so whats wrong with having gays officialy hooking up ... with benefits and all by using another term??? instead of marriage... have it named ... what is that name ..... civil union? wheres the harm in that? please help me to see how this is wrong... really... im not all that versed on this *****.

This is something that's making me smile. Don't get me wrong, I am of the "separate but equal has not proven itself to be equal" argument put forth by the Mass Supreme court, but does anyone else think it's really funny (not funny ha ha, just interesting) that all of a sudden you get everyone calling for civil unions? I mean, from Bill O'Reilly, to conservative politicians all over, including Bush in his speech allowing the possibility for state civil unions! Has everyone forgot all the hoopla surrounding Vermont's civil Union decision, what was it, like three years ago? People FREAKED - there was a whole "Take Back Vermont Campaign". I think just the fact that Civil Unions are getting so hyped up everywhere by even the mose conservative among us is a big victory from where we were on this issues even a few years ago.

The trajectory has been set.

Davis