Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by numediaman, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #1
    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.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    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.
     
  3. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #3
    this administration needs to embrace a little more and protect a little less...
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    It's wedge issue time. Remember, he's a uniter, not a divider...
     
  5. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #5
    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
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    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.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    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"
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    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?
     
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
  11. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #11
    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?
     
  12. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #12
    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. ;)
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    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?
     
  14. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #14
    It also meant polygamy or polyandry. What about those?
     
  15. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #16
    What he said.
     
  17. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    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.
     
  18. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #18
    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 sh*t.
     
  19. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #19
    There was a great discussion on NPR today with some Constitutional lawyers. They pointed out that this amendment would directly contradict the 14th:

    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.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    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.
     
  21. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #21
    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...
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    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.
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    i'm crying because it seems you didn't read my post. CRYING.
     
  24. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #24
    Yes it would. Banning it is religious discrimination.
     
  25. Awimoway macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Location:
    at the edge
    #25
    Well Lawrence Tribe said it. That's additional information.
     

Share This Page