Breaking News: Our Moral Leader Stops Gay Marriage

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 10:52am

Breaking news from the White House. This great, iconoclastic, forward-thinking leader -- a man who has few other "problems" domestic or international to concern himself with these days -- the humble guy who said, "I want to be a uniter," is taking it upon himself to change the Constitution. His act of moral courage: to protect our divorce-driven society from the abomination of gay marriage. His deeply empathetic response to people other than those exactly like him is revealed again. One can only stand back with shock and awe: What a triumph of good will and compassionate conservatism.

Updated On: 2/24/04 at 10:52 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 10:57am

I look forward to hearing what the Log Cabinettes have to say.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:04am

Amen, Master. Maybe they'll go to the Republican Convention, and cheer him on. They're gonna need some compassionate conservativism of their own.

[leeinlondon]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:04am

GOD I hope you guys kick your leader out in November... he has not one once of genuine compassion or understanding in him.

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:06am

This is historic. The President of the U.S. has, for all intents and purposes, declared "war" on gay Americans by denying them rights afforded to straight Americans.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:07am

I am a liberal democrat and do not understand why Bush did that!
If a man and man or a woman and a woman love each other they should be able to get married.
Love has everything to do with it.
I am outraged!
Let's fight for a new President who treats all people gay or straight equally.
Ban Bush. Ban Arnold!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.''


Talk About It


· Chat | Post Messages

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 millenia 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.


More on This Story


· California Seeks Ruling on Gay Marriages


Bush decided
Updated On: 2/24/04 at 11:07 AM

[rlbgbc]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:13am

Money. That's the reason.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:24am

Let's face it, it's a bald political move -- note the mention of Mass. -- to shore up his base, and to put Kerry and Edwards in the opposite camp. W the "man" doesn't give a damn. The machinery that propped up his 2000 coup and the right wing aftermath are gambling that this very divisive act will unite the base. We shall see. Again, this is the "positive" vision thing for America he's giving us all.

I bet lots of Republicans -- those not cowering in their Pottery Barn decorated log cabins -- are just glowing this a.m. Every value-embracing Elephant from Newt Gringrich to Britney Spears could watch that press conference and say "Now THERE is a man who sees marriage as the sacred institution that it is!" Why, I bet Britney sent his war chest a check.

Updated On: 2/24/04 at 11:24 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:26am

OK.

It's so not enough for us to be posting on a Broadway message board about this. People need to be heard. Let's not sit back and wait for our 'gay leaders' to do something about this. We need every voice out there that supports us to join in this fight. AND THAT MEANS OUR STRAIGHT FRIENDS. This is not a gay and lesbian fight. This is a fight for every single American who believes that the Constitution is there to guarantee our rights, not prohibit them. THIS IS NOT A GAY ISSUE. It is an American issue. Do NOT be silent. We have learned what silence can do.

And isn't it ironic that those conservatives who railed against us for wanting 'special rights' were really just doing it to protect their special right...the right to marry.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:27am

I am a straight woman but i think gay and lesbians are equals and should be treated equally.
Most of my friends are gay and some of them are in long term relationships that are more loving then straight people i know.
It is terrible! I believe that gay and Lesbians deserve to get married if that is what they want.
BAN BUSH!

[bwaylyric]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:31am

Don't both John Kerry and John Edwards oppose gay marriage as well?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:43am

while both are seemingly opposed to gay marriage, but not civil unions, this gambit by the president will force them to take sides. it's ugly politics at its darkest. the reality is that any such amendment would never make it out of either the house or the senate where it would require a 2/3 majority in each. bush is covering the flank that he exposed to the rabid right with his budgets. the white house is probably betting (i think correctly, not that i think it's a particularly bright idea) that any such amendment would never get out of such an evenly divided congress. even should it make it that far, it's still got to get ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures (or by state conventions depending on which is specified in the bill which has yet to be written), which as political pressure mounted on them would become increasingly unlikely. it's a craven political move.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:49am

IT IS ABOUT LOVE!
Bush needs to see Zanna Don't but Tim needs to rewrite the ending and take it to the White House.
Bring Zanna to the White House!
Updated On: 2/24/04 at 11:49 AM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 11:55am

I'm just plain humiliated that this man is the country's leader.

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 12:05pm

I never voted for him or his father.
He is a terrible speaker and sounds really dumb.
It is very scary. I would take Clinton over him any day.
I don't like what he did with Monica but he was a better President. (Just my opinion)
I am sure he believes in same sex marriage. He is a lover! Updated On: 2/24/04 at 12:05 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 12:20pm

"[i] would take [c]linton over him any day...[i] am sure he believes in same sex marriage."

he might now, but he didn't believe in it enough when he was president to veto the federal defense of marriage act of 1996.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 12:42pm

Ban gay Marriages? Retain the “SANCTITY” of Marriage? Let GWB put this in the
Amendment:

Each person in the same-sex couple must file separate tax returns. No tax break for anyone with children.

Adoption is now illegal. All unwanted/orphaned children become Wards of the State and will be put to work making clothing and license plates.

No one but a BLOOD relative may make decisions for a person who has been incapacitated due to illness or accident. And only said BLOOD relatives may visit incapacitated patient in the hospital.

No one may marry who is unable to procreate. (This shall include, but not be restricted to, the elderly, infertile and disabled.) Couples must prove their ability to conceive in a Medical Laboratory before Marriage License is issued and must have a child within two years of Wedding day.

Any person may be fired from a job or denied housing for any reason, including sex, race, religious affiliation, regional dialect, hair color, smell, or bad fashion sense.

Divorce is now illegal. If there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. Abuse, you may Divorce, but NEVER re-marry.

Annulment is now illegal. (No exceptions)

No Wedding may cost more than 10% of the combined annual income of the same sex couple.

“Wedding Gifts” are illegal.

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO MAINTAIN THE “SANCTITY” OF THE CONSTITION!

[RobbO]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 12:53pm

i think the ban is a good idea. those poor heterosexual couples face so many obstacles and adversities in their lives that they need this action to help preserve the sanctity of marriage that they clearly hold so near and dear to their collective hearts.

with this bold move, they will be to walk down the street with their heads held high and not know the shame of having to share the title of marriage with the lesser-deserving gay couples.

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 1:46pm

I love this op ed piece someone recently sent me (there's even some theater tie in):

BILL MAHER

Valentine's Day, that great state holiday

By Bill Maher, 2/14/2004

NEW RULE: You can't claim you're the party of smaller
government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If
there's one area I don't want the US government to add
to its list of screw-ups, it's love.

On the occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop
and ask ourselves: What business is it of the state
how consenting adults choose to pair off, share
expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each
other?

And why does the Bush administration want a
constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey,
birthdays are important, too -- why not include them
in the great document? Let's make a law that gay
people can have birthdays, but straight people get
more cake -- you know, to send the right message to
kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize
things, like schools, prison, Social Security -- OK,
so how about we privatize privacy? If the government
forbids gay men from tying the knot, what's their
alternative?

They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

Republicans used to be the party that opposed social
engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw
marriage for some people, and encourage it for others.
If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the
budget to encourage and promote marriage -- including
seed money to pay an old Jewish woman to call up
people at random and say "So why aren't you married,
Mr. Big Shot?"

But when it comes to homosexuals, Republicans sing "I
Love You Just the Way You Oughta Be." They oppose gay
marriage because it threatens or mocks -- or does
something -- to the "sanctity of marriage," as if
anything you can do drunk out of your mind in front of
an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas could be considered
sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are
doing it because one of them is either knocked-up,
rich or desperate, but in George Bush's mind, marriage
is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing
-- kind of like what his Dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this
issue -- they really believe that homosexuality,
because it says so in the Bible, is an "abomination"
and a "dysfunction" that's "curable": they believe
that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus,
he'll stop being gay -- because the theory worked out
so well with the Catholic priests.

But the greater shame in this story goes to the
Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is
an "abomination," and therefore their refusal to
endorse gay marriage is a hypocrisy. The right are
true believers, but the Democrats are merely
pretending that they believe gays are not entitled
to the same state-sanctioned misery as the rest of us.
The Democrats' position doesn't come from the Bible,
it's ripped right from the latest poll, which says
that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what: Sometimes "most Americans" are
wrong. Where's the Democrat who will stand up and go
beyond the half measures of "civil union" and "hate
the sin, love the sinner," and say loud and clear:
`There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an
abomination' -- although that Boy George musical Rosie
O'Donnell put on comes close. The only thing
abominable about being gay is the amount of time you
have to put in at the gym.

But that aside, the law in this country should reflect
that some people are just born 100 percent
outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay,
and that they don't need re-programming. They need a
man with a slow hand.

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 1:47pm

Hey folks!

Since all of my friends are completely lazy (though I love them dearly), I decided to put together a sort of form letter to send to their representatives and senators (on the state and federal level) to voice their displeasure.

Here it is (along with some links to where to send them). Feel free to use it if you'd like.

[DATE]

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]

Re: Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Dear [Name]:

The Constitution of the United States of America is currently under attack by a group of people, including the President of the United States, who wish to turn this sacred document into an instrument of discrimination. For over two hundred years, the Constitution has protected and guaranteed the rights of the citizens of America. From the abolition of slavery, to the right to free assembly, to a woman’s right to participate fully in our democracy by being afforded the right to vote, the Constitution has been the foundation on which our precious freedoms have been built. Once, in 1919, the Constitution was used to restrict the freedoms of Americans because of a moral objection to drinking. Not 25 years later, that silly Amendment was repealed.

You can be sure that if an Amendment banning gay marriage is written in to our Constitution, it will eventually be repealed. Those standing with that Amendment will be revealed to be on the wrong side of the issue, and history will regard them as it regards those who opposed all other civil rights battles in this country. Do not be on the wrong side of this issue. Be on the side of The United States of America and its Constitution and refuse to allow this hateful Amendment to move forward.

Sincerely,


[YOUR NAME HERE]

US Senators

Updated On: 2/24/04 at 01:47 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 1:48pm

And House of Representatives:


House of Reps

[orion59]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 1:56pm

Thanks Robbiej,

This makes it so much easier for us lazy people...or those of us that intend to sit down and compose a letter but, get so busy it slips by. I'll use your letter and the links you provided to contact my reps and let them know how I feel on this issue. That includes our wonderful anti gay marriage but civil union supporting senator, presidential wannabe, Mr. Kerry.

[bongoboy]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:14pm

Yes...thanks Robbiej...I just sent the letter to my senators.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:19pm

Who wants to travel to DC with me and have a big, fabulous, gay mock wedding right in front of the white house?

[Corine2]

Posted: 2/24/04 at 2:29pm

I will go. I have the time sigh!