portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

human & civil rights

Bush the gay basher

Changing the constitution to ban people from getting married.
Bush Backs Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriages
By DEB RIECHMANN, AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) -- President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the ''most enduring human institution.''

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.

''After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,'' the president said. ''Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.''

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end ''growing confusion'' that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.

''The president believes it is important to have clarity,'' he said. ''There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage.''

McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., ''meets his principles'' in protecting the ''sanctity of marriage'' between men and women.

But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate

California Seeks Ruling on Gay Marriages


Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. ''We're two months away,'' he said.

McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the ''sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.

''We need to act now,'' he said. ''The constitutional process will take time.''

With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was ''troubled'' by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be ''spouses for life.''

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.

Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: ''Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.''

Bush's comment that the states should be left free to ''define other arrangements'' indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.

A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.
Where's The 24.Feb.2004 10:03

Bashing?

Did you even read the article? The shrub would have been ridiculed by his own party 20 years ago if he would have made the statement attributed to him in your article. "Bush's comment that the states should be left free to ''define other arrangements'' indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws." So, where is the bashing part? What is the gay/lesbian point here? To say that gay and lesbian folks are "just like everyone else" and they should be able to call their unions "marriage"? I hope not, because the gay/lesbian community has spent several decades pushing for "equal rights" because they defined themselves as "different". We have enacted laws that protect this "different" community called Hate Crimes. The only "Right" that is not afforded to gay couples today is the "Right" to file a joint income tax return and be penalized with higher tax rates. I fully support the legislation that has passed to provide these equal rights, but I can not support the word "marriage" being used to describe a same-sex union.

Bashing?=funny 24.Feb.2004 11:38

Your Fairy Godmother

You seem to assume that I want anything in your pathetic little "insitution." Go on and keep getting married. Everything around me shows me how awesome it is. Lord knows that people keep pointing to it as the bedrock of our society. If this bedrock leads to what I see now, I want no part of it. I'm not desperate to run out and be just like my hetero counterparts. Just because you're in the majority doesn't mean that I'm ever going to stoop to accepting anything on your terms. Although I really want to get married, so I can start pumping out the babies. I'm mean, thats what marriage is for right? Jesus was only into people who can have kids...totally.
Oh well. Where is the Indymedia outrage? HA! Let the vultures descend.

Who hates homesexual? 24.Feb.2004 11:44

freedom lover

Anyone who hates homesexuals that much -to interfere with their lifestyle- must be a repressed latent homosexual and intellectually challenged.

my opinion 24.Feb.2004 12:52

me

Homosexual marriage is fine with me. The issue is equal rights, instead of wanting to be different. Why should heteros as a class be first class citizens while homosexuals are forced to be second class citizens when it comes to the law? You are simply defending bias, you are unable to have a legal/civil argument.

Any more love and stability one can set up against the (sadly, mostly) pigheaded idiotic Christian hatred is fine with me!

Voters in California Already Voted Against Gay Marriage 24.Feb.2004 13:03

Me

San Francisco officials are breaking the law.

Take preferential treatment from all marriages 24.Feb.2004 13:28

Nobodyaskedmebut

Married couples are given preferential treatment. Despite their claims of a "marriage penalty", married people actually get preferential tax treatment. Married people tend to be given prefential treatment at work, for example it's been proven they get paid more than singles.

My opinion is we shouldn't give preferential treatment to married people, whether they're the traditional straight marriages or these new gay marriages in which gays copy the heteros.

The gays who seek to get legally married seem very mainstream; some progressives might call them sellouts. I assume they're doing it for financial benefit and to copy hetero behavior. It seems better to seek equality by removing all the preferential treatment given to married couples.

It is interesting to see Bush finally take a strong stand on an issue (amendment defining marriage as between man and woman), as opposed to his recent "leftie" behavior designed to steal moderate voters (letting in 10+ million illegal immigrants, wasting billions on the space programm, etc), which is hardly different from Kerry's "moderate" platform.

so what? it's still wrong 24.Feb.2004 13:34

me

so were civil rights workers in Selma, Mississippi in the 1960s.

so were black people when they wanted to ride in the front of the bus.

so were migrant farm workers who wanted to unionize.

so were third party candidates that wanted to get on the ballot or in the national televion debates.

I could go on and on.

America WILL change. I hope to see another 3,000 more couples marry. When laws lack the force of justice, laws require changing.

bashing 24.Feb.2004 14:28

to my fairy godmother

First of all I didn't assume anything about your personal opinions about marriage. Even though YOU particularly don't like the idea of marriage, there seems to be at least 3000 people who do want to participate in the pathetic institution. I am a hetero who will probably never get married, but I don't see a reason why people who want to get married cannot. Answer me that fairy godmother.

marriage business isn't the government's business 24.Feb.2004 15:05

who's asking?

The government has no business in the marriage business at all. What is the state doing, passing out marriage licenses to anyone? The private, consensual acts of adults should be completely free of state interference. Marriage is the province of individuals and the communities of choice to which they belong, not the state. Freedom of religion, supported by the constitution, includes freedom of marriage. The right to the "pursuit of happiness" named in the Declaration of Independence also implies freedom to marry.

The simplest solution to the gay marriage question? Have the government stop regulating marriage completely.

So What? Please Go On 24.Feb.2004 15:18

With Your list

so were civil rights workers in Selma, Mississippi in the 1960s.

so were black people when they wanted to ride in the front of the bus.

so were migrant farm workers who wanted to unionize.

so were third party candidates that wanted to get on the ballot or in the national televion debates.

I could go on and on.

America WILL change. I hope to see another 3,000 more couples marry. When laws lack the force of justice, laws require changing.


Blah, blah, blah. And after all these actions, look at the country today. People are still whiny assed bitchin about not gettin their piece of da pie. If you don't like it here, leave.

Should black people have ever been relegated to the back of the bus? Hell no, to this very day, black decedents of the slaves should be given first class airfare back to their ancestrial nations so they can kick the shit out of the decedents of the black leaders who sold the slaves to white men in the first place.

Should the migrant workers have to unionize? Hell no, the rich bastard farmers should be forced to pay a decent wage whereas migrants wouldn't be necesary. It is not as if this country is lacking workers, it is lacking decent wage jobs.

As for third part candidates, what change has taken place? It is still nearly impossible for a third party to compete.

I agee with your statement that laws need to change. Let us treat people as people and eliminate affirmative action and repeal all supposed Hate Crime laws. A crime is a crime and all criminals should face the same penalty, not just the criminals who chose to pick on a certain type of person.

... 24.Feb.2004 15:48

this thing here

i have yet to hear a single coherent argument, based in u.s. law, about why these people over here can get married, yet those people over there cannot get married.

hmm, maybe it's because there ISN'T a single coherent argument based in the law...

when i step back, i wonder who's doing the most damage to the institution of marriage: two people of the same gender who want to get married and live their lives together, or a single politician who wants to REDEFINE marriage BY THE VERY ACT OF DEFINING IT for HIS political purposes alone.

since you DON'T have an argument based in the law, you tell me, fuckin republicans and right wingers. no, jeseus isn't going to come down and help you answer it, he isn't going to come down with a legal brief, he isn't going to come down and send all the homosexuals and democrats to hell and all the good little republicans to heaven.

Sancitity of marriage??? please... 24.Feb.2004 16:25

pp

The so called sanctity of marriage in this culture is a joke. When Britney Spears can make a media spectacle out of a 24 hour marriage; when "reality" TV has show after show where bachelors and bachelorettes line up for contests to pick a mate; when the het divorce rate is in the 60 per centile range -- it's these that are making a mockery of marriage, not when two loving people want to make a legal commitment to each other. Gay marriage just might bring back the idea of a loving, committed union.

correction 24.Feb.2004 16:30

fighting for the constitution

"San Francisco officials are breaking the law"

San Francisco officials are breaking an unconstitutional law.

while we're at it 24.Feb.2004 16:46

thinking out loud

>> A crime is a crime and all criminals should face the same penalty, not just the criminals who chose to pick on a certain type of person

Yes, and let's give the same penalty to those who commit manslaughter as those who commit first degree murder. They should face the same penalty regardless of their motives or intent.

Jesus saves 24.Feb.2004 17:02

Buddha recycles

"jeseus isn't going to come down and help you answer it, he isn't going to come down with a legal brief"

I wish he would. It was his outfit that started this silly cr*p about how the Godly thing to do with a gay kid is nuke 'em instead of love 'em. I'd just love 'em. Do I exceed God in the capacity to love my children? Of course not. Then if I ain't like that, then neither is he, and I hope some of them get that straight one of these days. It really is so very simple.

It might all make even a Pagan like me wish Jesus was on his way soon, but Jesus a' comin' is just the Neo-Clown... uh, Neo-Con... cult excuse for seeing how fast we can use up resources, like Jimmy Carter said. You're right... I'm not holding my breath waiting.

REAL conservatives would oppose a constitutional amendment re. marriage 24.Feb.2004 17:12

defender of liberty

the AP article says that "[t]he conservative wing of his party" wants "action" such as a constitutional amendment. that's not real conservativism, which stands strongly for states' rights and individual liberty. if a constitutional amendment re. marriage is passed, the federal government will be diving into waters it has barely ever stuck its toe in. marriage has *always* been left up to the states, and has been seen as none of the federal government's business. REAL conservatives (not the fundie wackos of the republican party) would oppose the amendment for that reason.

Barry Goldwater, frmr senator from Arizona and 1964 Republican presidential candidate is hailed by many as the founder (or at least populizer) of the "modern" conservative movement in the U.S. in the 20th Century. when approached re. the topic of gays in the military in 1992 (when Clinton raised the topic), he said -- much to the Republicans' horror -- something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if a soldier is straight, just as long as he shoots straight!" Goldwater was staying true to conservative principles with this stance, and i'm sure he'd feel similarly about the federal government poking around in marriage. it's got no place there!

(btw, i'm a neither right nor left anarcho-sustainabilityist, but agree in large part with the REAL conservative notion that the federal gov't should be reduced to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.)

Jesus was not a gay-basher 24.Feb.2004 17:19

Exegeticist

In response to "Buddha recycles", Jesus did *not* start "this silly cr*p about how the Godly thing to do with a gay kid is nuke 'em instead of love 'em". The Bible is not a good guide for Christians or Jews to use regarding homosexuality, as it speaks neither clearly nor consistently on the topic. Jesus was silent on the subject. It was St. Paul who condemned a list of homosexual acts (but not homosexuals per se) in his letter to the Romans. The Old Testament has a couple places condemned acts similarly, but they are part of a set of laws that are not otherwise followed in toto by Christians or Jews. (When was the last time, for example, that you heard a fundamentalist Christian railing against wearing "clothing of mixed fibers"? Certainly not just after they walk out of a Walmart with a new poly-cotton blend sweatshop-produced pair of undies!)

Lesbian acts, BTW, are simply not mentioned at all in the Bible -- only male homosexual acts.

switch that 24.Feb.2004 17:26

me

"People are still whiny assed bitchin about not gettin their piece of da pie. If you don't like it here, leave."

NO, rightist troll. What you want--the removal of any redress of grievances (protected by the Constitution) is undemocratic, so YOU SHOULD LEAVE. Take the whole Bush family with you by the way. This is a democracy. You have little understanding of this country or the democratic political process, silly.

If I could, I would help you get back to Germany in the early 1940s where you belong, right before all of your 'round-one' fascists were destroyed. Seemed they missed a couple who got away: your parents.

Did I say 3,000. Sorry, I meant I hope to see 30,000 more homosexual couples out there very soon enjoying civil rights equally like everyone else, instead of being made second class citizens, socially and financially.

Jesus saves 24.Feb.2004 19:29

Buddha recycles

"In response to "Buddha recycles", Jesus did *not* start "this silly cr*p about how the Godly thing to do with a gay kid is nuke 'em instead of love 'em". The Bible is not a good guide for Christians or Jews to use regarding homosexuality, as it speaks neither clearly nor consistently on the topic."

Good point. I know people who still swear by it, as I know those who still swear by burning witches at the stake, but you're right, that is "that Old Testament stuff"... and I did say "His outfit" rather than Him, I too don't think this kind of attitude toward homosexuality or other things is much in accord with Jesus' life's examples.

You're also right about the Bible not speaking consistently on that (or some other) subjects. When I got to those parts, I thought the lack of consistency meant there were obviously choices I needed to make for myself, and tried to make them as best I could, even if they led to views that weren't in great accord with the expressed views of the rest of the "flock," rather than waiting for the Second Coming for clarification on them...

As with the above example, I think one can probably get clarification from the true contents of their own character and their own hearts.

what a deviation from the problems of the day 24.Feb.2004 20:15

mom

Interesting how bush has shifted the national debate away from the economy and the war and onto an issue as loaded as the abortion issue which he used last time. Too bad most Christians don't know their Bible well enough to know that they are not going to find any direction for or against gay marriages.
As others have said, how can it matter if two adult people want to commit their lives to each other? I think there should be civil unions for hetero as well as same sex couples as long as it offers the same legal benefits and protections to the couples. Marriage can be a "church/religious option" and the government shouldn't interfere with religion --- nor should it force it on us.
As a formerly married person, i would add that I think marriage laws/ benefits were designed to protect women and children. In today's world women work (although we still don't have the same dollar value) and children are found in same sex partnerships as well --- and they need to be protected.

if marriage is so wonderful... 24.Feb.2004 20:16

face

...how come the divorce rate is about 70% in this area and 50% is most of the US? I say it's because IT DOESN'T WORK. It's pretty damn pitiful to have to get hitched just to ensure your beloved can be by your bedside when you're in the hospital or can inherit the property you bought together. Got to be a better way for thinking people to organize their personal lives. Historically marriage has been a business/political matter between families; while the family part is no longer true, the business/political part still controls the process. Witness the amount some people spend a wedding. I bet the wedding/industrial complex is licking its lips at the thought of another market to tap.

"Sanctity of Marriage" Amendment Should Not Stand 24.Feb.2004 20:35

North Portlander

Framers of the Constitution and writers of the various amendments went to great lengths to maintain a distance between church, state, and religiously-based moral stances. Article Six reads, in part, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." In content, our Constitution overwhelmingly delineates freedoms and protections and does not concern itself with formally adopting the opinion of a part of the population to apply to the whole - finer points of law that should be argued in context and in court.

Case in point: Prohibition - the only amendement to the Constitution to be repealed - sought to put restrictions on a particular item.

For years, groups have agitated to have amendments to make flag burning unlawful and school prayer and the wording "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance made mandatory and written into the Constitution without success. This is because such things can be argued and passed on in State and Federal jurisdictions by using the existing Constitution and do not have to be a part of it.

A Constitutional amendment is NOT in order and would NOT be proper. Beyond that, I find it amusing that the feds and others are trying to say that they object to the use of the term "marriage" when, in fact, many of them object to any sort of legitimized union between anybody but heterosexual couples. They cry that it is an affont to the "sanctity" (holiness? religious patina?) of marriage and go further in asserting that only the union of a man and a woman can give children the sort of nurturing they need to function in a healthy family. I know plenty of gay and lesbian couples with fine children and families; that they are deprived of the many benefits that now fall naturally to heterosexual couples and families makes no sense.

We are not a Christian country, although the Bush administration acts as though we are. No laws are to be made that abridge the rights of those with differing religions and beliefs because we are not all of the same belief system and no laws should be made that deny a part of our population of benefits based on need, simply because of their sexual orientation.

There was a time when blacks and women were not allowed to vote in this country (although individual States - including Oregon - did accord women this right before the federal government got around to writing and recognizing the 19th amendment in 1920). In 1870, the 15th amendment recognized that rights (including the right to vote) were not to be denied on account of race.

Check it out, folks:
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

This is all about FREEDOMS, RIGHTS and PROTECTIONS, not about depriving a part of the population of something that another part receives as a matter of course.

Mr. Bush is dead wrong. He cannot hope to win this one and - in a way - I think he must know that and this is only an attempt to distract us from all of his many other problems.

Ridiculous homophobia 24.Feb.2004 22:25

Bear

Bu$h has a lot of goddamn nerve spouting off about the "sanctity of marriage" while he's killing people in Iraq, lying to the people, destroying the environment, and flushing the economy down the toilet. He's not fit to talk about the sanctity of anything. What a sanctimonious, hypocritical moron.

Over half the straight marriages end in divorce these days. I say that anyone- gay or straight- with a happy, fulfilling relationship is fortunate, and however they want to formalize that, or not, should be totally up to them. Really, the prohibition on gay marriage is a form of sex discrimination. That would be a good legal line of reasoning to use. Anyway, to hell with the State. This society continues to amaze me with how ridiculous it can get.