Interesting read, found it here: http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=3991


Bush backs off gay marriage ban

By Myles Wearring

Sydney Star Observer
Issue 748
Published 20/01/2005
GEORGE BUSH HAS CONSERVATIVES WORRIED AFTER GIVING UP ON THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN.

The White House has gone into damage control following President George Bush’s suggestion he will stop pushing for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage because too many US senators are against it.

In an interview with The Washington Post this week, Bush said there was no reason to press for the amendment while so many senators remained convinced the Defence Of Marriage Act – which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognise such marriages conducted outside their borders – was sufficient.

“Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen,” Bush said. “I’d take their admonition seriously … Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate.”

During his 2004 election campaign Bush voiced strong support for a federal ban on gay marriage, and many political analysts have credited this position for inspiring a record turnout among fundamentalist Christians voters, who had declared war on same-sex marriage.

Worried the president’s new position could infuriate conservative supporters, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said this week Bush was still “willing to spend political capital” to make the ban happen, but that it would be virtually impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.

In a further bid to reassure voters, the president’s counsellor Dan Bartlett appeared in a TV interview and said Bush was speaking only of “political reality in the Senate” and that he planned to continue to push for the constitutional amendment.

Winnie Stachelberg, political director of queer rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said the administration’s conflicting comments on the issue were “another reminder of the president’s inconsistency”.

In November last year Bush announced he did not oppose civil unions for same-sex couples, despite the Republican Party running on a platform explicitly against the idea. When asked about his party’s opposition to civil unions in a TV interview Bush said he disagreed with the policy and believed it was an issue that should be left to the states.

“We have seen two faces of George W. Bush in the last several months, and are wondering which one will take the oath of office on Thursday,” Stachelberg said of the president’s official inauguration ceremony this week. “Our great hope is that George Bush will back up his new-found support for civil unions and respect for all families with his actions.”

The HRC ran a TV ad in Washington DC this week outlining Bush’s inconsistencies regarding equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans during his first term.

<font color=plum>I heard on the news yesterday that 43 states had now banned same-sex marriages. As long as the states address the issues in their constitutions and the DOMA is considered constitutional by the Supreme Court, then there isn't any need for President Bush to pursue the constitutional amendment at the Federal level.

I also agree that his "new" stance is based on the political reality of the Senate and I disagree with Stachelberg that is "another inconsistency" of President Bush. Admitting that the Senate will not support or pass a bill that he supports is not a reversal of his previous position.</font>

<font color=skyblue>Wow! 43?
Do you know which 7 have not followed suit?

I can guess at maybe two or three...but beyond that I would not be able to name all 7.

Are any of them still pending?</font>

What gets me is how can the DOMA be constitutional. I thought it said in the constitution that no state shall pass a law that prevents a citizen from the persuit of happyness. Or something like that, and this clearly does. There may be something I am not seeing but it seems pretty simple to me.

FORTY-THREE?!

Why have I not heard about this? Where's the outrage? If this is true, I'm quite shocked that I haven't heard about it, that it hasn't been a topic of discussion amongst my friends... We go on and talk about how Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island.

Here's a link to a pretty good summary site with state by state info. Makes for a depressing read...

http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/HTML...e_by_State.htm

[ 01-21-2005, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Absynthe ]

Wow 43. I guess the vast majority of United State Citizens don't care, which makes me lose faith. If I weren't so dependent on my parents I'd move to Canada, spite the colder weather :(

There's a debate in Canada right now about the legalization of same-sex marriage, but considering that it's legal in most of Canada and a slime majoriy of Canadians support Sam-Sex marriage , the bill will probbaly pass.

Many homosexuals will likely come to Canada if the conservatives in the United States continue this homophobic bullshit.

[ 01-21-2005, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

<font color=skyblue>Okay...your post does not make sense, since you are contradicting yourself. Are you for or against? :D

</font>

Lol methinks a typo?

<font color=plum>You don't have to be married to fulfill your pursuit of happiness. In fact, many heterosexual couples live together (and even have children) without ever getting married. The ONLY "advantage" to marriage are the legal rights and benefits gained by the spouse.

I have a close friend who was dead-set against getting married, but has been living with his g/f for several years now. She has 3 kids from her first marriage and they just recently had a fourth child of their own. Once the fourth kid came along, my buddy was forced to admit that marriage DID bring some extra benefits that would make life easier for all of them - so he and his girlfriend actually decided to make their relationship "official". However, he had been perfectly happy living UN-married with her for the last several years.

So DOMA is not un-constitutional on the grounds of "pursuit of happiness".

And just for the record, there is a VAST difference between opposing homosexual marriages and being homophobic. </font>

You're right... Opposing gay marriage is not homophobic, it's heterosexist. And another "advantage" to marriage is the validation of a relationship by the state, and society.

This is not an attack, but merely a curiosity, Cerek... Would you support domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage? If not, how do you feel about the states that have banned all partnership laws for homosexuals?

<font color=plum>I do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. I agree that they deserve to have the same legal benefits as a married heterosexual couple. I also do not support the Marriage Amendment. I do NOT feel we need to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the sole purpose of defining the term "marriage".

I do believe that the term marriage should be reserved for a heterosexual union, and I freely admit this disagreement is based solely upon my religious beliefs. While critics will say that it is silly to be so "hung up" over a word, I would counter that by asking that - if that be the case - then why do homosexuals insist that their partnerships be called "marriages" if a "civil union" will grant them the same legal benefits?

BOTH sides are equally "hung up" on the term marriage.

As for the individual states, they have a right to define their laws as they see fit. Not all states banned civil unions or domestic partnerships (though some did specifically include those terms in the wording also). Many of these states ONLY banned "gay marriages". And most of those amendments were voted on by the general public, so the law does reflect the desires of the majority of citizens in that particular state.

I believe that each state has the right to endorse or deny gay marriages as they and their citizens see fit. I don't completely agree with those that banned any form of domestic partnership, but I still feel they have the right to create those laws if it reflects the opinion of the majority of their citizens. </font>

<font color=skyblue>Okay...your post does not make sense, since you are contradicting yourself. Are you for or against? :D

</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I'm for (or least have no problem with) same-sex marriage. I'm not trying to contradict myself. The point that I'm trying to make to Conner is the fact that Canada is not as "gay friendly" as most homosexuals make of it. Yeah, it's legal but it's polorizing the country because the people opposed to are almost as numerous as the people who are for it.

I see your point.

<font color=skyblue>Okay...your post does not make sense, since you are contradicting yourself. Are you for or against? :D

</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Or it's a fraudian slip (pun intended) ;)