President Bush backs anti-gay marriage bill!
 

I just read this article at msn today and I was very disturbed and annoyed. Here's the article.

WASHINGTON, July 30 — President Bush said Wednesday that he had government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.

“I BELIEVE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said in a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
“I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added.
“I BELIEVE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said in a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
“I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added.

STRONG REACTION TO REMARKS
Despite his calibrated language, Bush’s statement touched off passionate responses from groups with an interest in the issue.
“There is a real movement for same-sex marriage, and if the president doesn’t intervene, and if he doesn’t take leadership in this area, we could lose marriage in this country the way we know it,” said Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the son of evangelist Billy Graham. “I think the president is doing the right thing.”


The Rev. Pat Robertson agreed. Both ministers spoke in Orlando, Fla., at the memorial service for Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.
“I applaud the president’s movement on this,” Robertson said. “I think it’s absolutely important that the American people defend the institution of marriage. Its foundational to our entire society, and I think in order [for] this to be effective, it’s going to have to be a constitutional amendment.”
But gay-rights activists took offense at Bush’s comment that “we’re all sinners,” interpreting the remark as directed at them.
“While we respect President Bush’s religious views, it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as ‘sinners,’” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It’s also sad that, at a moment in history that cries out for leadership and moral courage, President Bush has instead opted for the divisive, anti-gay politics of the past.”
The Human Rights Campaign, which says it is the nation’s largest gay and lesbian political group, branded Bush’s exploration of a law on gay marriage a “call to codify discrimination.”

SUPREME COURT ACTION
Bush has long opposed gay marriage, but as recently as earlier this month he said a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives thought opened the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish gays and lesbians for having sex.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
The “opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, “Do not believe it.”
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred last month to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

here's the link to the article http://www.msnbc.com/news/945974.asp

That's a pretty repetitive speech the president gave. Darned fool that he is. This is a great shame, but no surprise at all.

Yeah, not a surprise at all. People think letting homosexuals marry would be harmful to everyone else for some reason. There's no good reason to keep it banned.

As Lena might say:

"It's a load of crap."

Given the tough requirement for a constitutional amendment, and that the equal rights amendment failed, I strongly doubt an amendment to define marriage has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. However, the attempt to pass it could do a lot of damage.

I have no problem with Bush believing that only heterosexual marriage is ok as a personal issue, but given the pricnciple of seperation of church and state, he has no business trying to enforce that belief as secular law.

Charles, I agree whole heartedly. Bush may have his personal views, but those views are rooted in his religious beliefs, which he proved by stating we are all sinners and quoting the Christian Bible. So his basis for why this is deserved is solely on religion, church. Not cool.

My father an I got into a fight about this last night. Apparently I am not a good christian. Whatever. God still loves me, ;)

Well it comes as no surprise, neo-conservatism is pretty huge nowadays. What with Bush screwing up Iraq and the US economy he's trying to direct all the attention to "aiding" ( :rolleyes: ) Africa and this. His support has always and will always come from the Bible-belt so this is just perfect way to convince people that he is worthy for re-election.

On a side note:
And man do I hate that flaming bastard, Pat Robertson. Who the hell cares what he agrees on when he spouts out such shit and does this.

We need a gay man (Or woman while we're at it!) to run for office! That would probably fix a lot of thing.

While I am not gay myself, I can't stand homophobics, partly because I'm a t.A.T.u. fan...

To all american homos, just move north to Canada and get married here!

Why do you guys think Bush and Fox (mexican president) get along so well (besides the fact that Fox sells all our oil to him? :P)? For strict church-going presidents like those two, it's more important to deny us the same rights heterosexual people have than to take care of the huge voting society sector we are.

Boo on them. They should be gay and know how fun it is to be privated of your rights. *fumes*

read this yesterday and pretty sad too...now what I'm worried is that Canada is being pushed (by the vatican and other conservative groups) to change again the constitution, shame that now that they won the right to marry, they are still trying to turn it illegal...

maybe this world will never change...

My President has a similar policy. But it didn't stop Taty, did it?

PowerPuff Grrl, actually people in Liberia desperately want America to intervene, and Bush is being non-commital. At least that's what I last heard. Or maybe you're talking about something else when you mention "aiding" Africa ? :confused:

I can't believe this speech of his though. His arguments make no sense. As usual. :rolleyes: What was with that "sinners" comment?! And a constitutional amendment... :bebebe:

Same goes for me. I'm not surprised the Vatican is all over this. They're the most religious Christians in the world. They would have to be mad not to complain about this.

I had heard about this a month ago....I wish he will be definately a gay in his next lifetime to feel how does a gay feel!! :mad:

sudden curiosity attack !
 

I am not quite familiar with a state of affairs of gays in US (in fact their problems are so far from my cares :laugh: :) ) , but I am interested in what’s going in the States generally (you know studying hard American history, political science and lot of other stuff at high school :znaika: ) So in this connection I have a question to the American fellows - who was the man you voted for at the last presidential elections (sure if you were full age on that time - you know peoples of different ages are coming here, so who knows maybe here are some deliberate US citizens :rolleyes: :spy: ) ,and if not you then your parents, relatives , friends of yours etc?
By the way America generally speaking could be divided to republicans and democrats ( it’s a facilitation to a certain extent but nevertheless) So, are you / your parents, relatives , friends from the republican or democratic camp, are you/they “elephants” or “donkeys”?

My mom is a strong Democrat. The only time she voted for a Republican was for Ronald Reagan. And then because of Reagan, her father was laid off from his job. So that was the last time a Republican got her vote.

My Dad is kind of funny when it comes to this. He is more left-wing than my mom, but he doesn't always vote for the Democrat. Back in '92, he voted for Ross Perot. And in the last election, he would have voted for Ralph Nader. But he knew how close the race was between Bush and Gore, and he did not want Bush to be President, so he voted for Gore. So he usually votes for who has similar opinions to him, even if they're Independents, and probably won't win anyway.

OT:
Oh I'm not denying Liberians want intervention, in fact I believe any given African nation wants the same thing. It is just that I don't think Bush will actually do anything other than donate a few billion dollars which will end up in the pockets of a few African dictators.


On topic though,
You don't need to worry, the Opposition is mainly based on the fact that Parliament was not entirely involved in the whole thing. Which is bullshit because that usually always happens, the only reason why the Opposition is angry is because it didn't work out in their favour.

Furthermore, Churches are only against the idea of labeling gay marriages as "marriages" because the term is derived from the Bible which they believe defines marriages as a union between a man and a woman. These Churches feel that though the Government should recognize gay rights, they shouldn't be labeled uder the conventional meaning of "marriage" but rather "legal union."
I say, "whatever."

On a final note, Canada is probably one of the most skeptical countries in the world, any religious influences won't affect our decision-making as a country.
And it is kinda funny that you mention Vincent Fox and George W. Bush as being friends and sharing and practising a common faith, Darje, probably one of the many reasons why Jean Chretien (Canadian Prime Minister) isn't all that close to Bush.

oblakovshtanah, my father was republican, but favored the libertarian party when he died. My mother was very democratic, but is now a staunch replican (go figure). I'm pretty neutral, but voted democratic in the last 5 presidential elections. I voted for Reagen the first time becuase Jimmy Carter wasn't a strong enough leader. My father inlaw was republican (and president of a bank), but turned democrat when he retired.

oblakovshtanah, I voted for Gore :gigi: My dad lives in Texas and he is a Republican, mostly because he thinks it will stop him from paying so much in taxes. Almost everyone I know in Texas votes Republican - a suburb of a major city.

My mom is pretty much a Democrat; she voted for Gore as well. I go to university on the East Coast and most of the students there are liberals: maybe a third voted for Ralph Nader (!), and most of the others for Gore. Although all political interests are represented, have clubs and so on ;)

i voted for gore
 

::sigh:: This is just wrong on so many levels. Religiously and politically CIVIL RIGHTS! Freedom of religion, if one can practice satanism and chant and do ungodly things, then why can't one get married which is part of being a christian(a RELIGION)?? Religious wise, who are we, as humans, to enforce God's will upon others? We are only mere humans, equal in our sins, none is above the other. Whether it be the pope or the president (I do not care for you opinion Mr.President!!) Although I realize that everyone is entitled to one's opinion. It is wrong for the pope (yes i did just say that) to use religion and try to influence politicians. I believe marriage should be an option for everyone, the pope can voice his beliefs or disapproval, but not one individual in this earth is in the position to try and carry out Gods will. We (as Christians and/or Catholics) are only to try and abide by the bible and it's teachings, not pass judgement and force it upon others.

I've spoken to a friend of mine, who is highly religious, (whom I interrupted his Good Friday reading just to have this conversation) And he was speechless, when I brought this subject up. He does not condone the gay lifestyle at all (and he agrees with Bush), yet he was unable to provide an argument to defend the recent events. I'm dismayed by all this, especially when it's my religion who is behind of all of it. (When is it not?) ::sigh::


I'm sorry..i'm just ranting.. :(

Yay! So it WAS Gore! I beat my mom. She thought Bush's contender was Quayle... or however you write it. </offtopic>

Anyhow. Bush. The president with worse fame ever. :P