Bush Calls Gay Marriage Ruling Troubling

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush denounced a Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriages Wednesday as "deeply troubling," and conservative activists said they had received a White House pledge that he will push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex weddings.

But Bush, in a written statement, stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment, a sensitive election-year issue.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," the president said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

more......................

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-gay-marriage,0,4047634.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[LosinIt]

1. Don't they have more to worry about than that?

This is all sooooo asinine.

[Snappy]

2. Change the Talking Points

This is a diversion from the high crimes and misdemeaners of the Neo Fascists.

[roguevalley]

3. Gay people call Bush troubling. Bush's gay marriage called troubling.

Gay marriage for Bush is troubling. Trouble ahead for
Bush's gay marriage.

Sort of explains Pickles ...

[ComerPerro]

4. Everything is either puzzling or troubling to this asshole

What a moron.

[saigon68]

5. It was troubling for him when non-whites could vote

He also had problems with the principle of people of color sitting anywhere they wanted to on the bus.

[matcom]

6. some facts......

Marriage is NOT sanctioned by any Church, rather sanctioned by THE STATE

3 of the 4 SJC's who formed this majority ruling were APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN GOVERNERS

African Americans were once deemed second class citizens in this country, why are GAY PEOPLE?

HOORAY for Massachusetts! CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL MY GAY AND LESBIAN FRIENDS!

:bounce:

[lazarus]

7. divorce?

Whenever somebody says, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," ask them when they're going to start lobbying to have divorce outlawed.

[megatherium]

12. Jesus prohibited divorce,

and of course the Catholic church still doesn't allow it (except through the device of "annullment"). Jesus' prohibition of divorce was actually (in the context of his times) a compassionate teaching -- men could divorce at will, and women so divorced had no options but prostitution or return to her family in shame (if they would take her back).

Actually, "Biblical morality", for all you evangelicals and fundamentalists, is much different than traditional American morality. There is a story in the Gospel where Jesus is asked about a woman who was married to a man who died, and then she married his brother, but he died, and this happened seven times. Jesus was asked, in Heaven whose wife will she be? That was the custom in Jesus' day -- a woman whose husband died married his brother. (This was called a "levarite marriage".) Jesus doesn't comment on the practice itself, he only takes the opportunity to teach that there is no marriage in Heaven.

And let's not fail to note the prevalence of polygamy in the Bible. E.g., King Solomon is criticized in the scriptures not for having so many wives, but for having foreign wives, whose polytheism and alien customs ended up corrupting his kingdom.

[Anaxamander]

24. Small correction: It's "levirate," not "levarite." (nt)

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. I am somewhat pleased that Bush took this stance

.
.

because he has alienated yet another whole demographic group of US citizens

and therefore cost himself votes!

Repub or not, you can bet ur bippie that most gay/lesbian/bi voters will NOT be voting for Junior,

AND, by threatening to mess around with the Constitution

has disturbed, if not alienated ANOTHER group of voters.

I say,

GeorgieBoy seems to be opening his mouth just to change feet these days

and that is good

[bushisanidiot]

9. I Think The Repukes Are Actually Behind The Mass. Ruling To Ram Gay Marria

marriage into the spotlight so they can claim their high and mighty god approved stance of passing a new anti-gay ammendment. The repukes are obsessed with all things gay so this should be a fun year for them.

"git yer bibles out, brethren and light the cross!!"

idiots..

[scarface2004]

10. troubling??!!!

the fact we selected a moron for president is troubling...time to amend the constitution donchathink!

[truthisfreedom]

11. bush wipes ass with "state's rights" supreme court decision

after supreme court of the US selected him.


seems this boy is mighty-f'in choosy. well, 'w', beggars can't be.

[leesa]

13. Maybe his boyfriend has been pressuring him to get married.

[Beetwasher]

14. Bring It On Douche! This Is How To Handle This Issue:

It's all about reframing this issue to be about denying people their rights and freedoms. Turn it on it's head and put the Repubs on the defensive. It's obvious what he's trying to do; he's trying to make this the single issue of the campaign and wants to use it to divide and conquer. It's blatant. However, it can be turned against them. In their arrogance they have overreached with this one and it's very simple to turn this around and put them on the defensive about it and use it to divide and conquer them. The Dems have to be united on this and have to use the same phrases, the same wording over and over and bludgeon the country w/ it. They all need to be on the same page and this is what they have to say:

The Repubs want to DENY people their RIGHT to FREEDOM and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS by ammending the constitution. The constitution was meant to protect these things, not deny them.

Notice the word gay is not in there. Notice the word marriage is not in there. That's on purpose and should remain that way. This needs to be turned into the Repubs defending ammending the constitution to deny people their right to freedom and pursuit of happiness. The words gay and marriage should never be uttered from the mouths of any Dem.

You can then go on to list a litany of rights that the Repubs want to restrict and/or have attacked or removed; the right to have control over your own body, the right to privacy, the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the right to due process. Get into the PATRIOT Act etc. Why are these assholes constantly looking for ways to restrict our rights?

Plain, simple and end of story and I better fucking see this put forth by the Dems in this manner. I'm severely pissed off at this nonsense.

[BLUEBOY]

16. Bring It On Douche! Right on the money!!!

Beetwasher you got it!! As a gay man who has been in a committed relationship for 15 years I support that statement wholeheartedly. Bushco is trying to use WMD (weapons of mass distraction) to get people attention away from the 523+ US soldier killed in Iraq, the out of control deficit, and the millions of unemployed! They hate us for our freedom. What freedom? The man’s a Jackass and needs to go NOW!

[icymist]

17. And turn their own words back on them....

If the repubs call judges that don't rule in ways they approve of as 'activist judges' then we should be calling their own people 'activist'. Compare these two praises: 'Vice President Cheney said today...' to 'Neo-Con activist Vice President Cheney said today...' See the difference? ;)

[DBoon]

15. Bush finds independent judiciary troubling

Saying, "Things would be easier if I were a dictator".

Promises to fix trouble if re-elected.

[hatrack]

18. Hey George!

I know it's been said before, but who cares what you think?

[David__77]

19. 146 House votes are needed to stop it.

That's all. I know we have that many progressive districts in the country. Interestingly, it's partly as a result of GOP gerrymandering that we have so many very safe seats, with them packing Democrats into the same districts.

We only need one-third plus one in either chamber to stop any foul amendment in its tracks.

[chelsea0011]

20. What the HELL is an "activist court"??

:nopity: I guess whenever the right wing doesn't get its' way they throw out the dreaded "activist" charge. That'll teach'um. But I don't get it. Is every decision by any court considered "activist" by its' nature? The wacky right wing think they have the Almighty right to know which is activist and which isn't. Only the so-called liberal court could be considered activist, but can't Scalia and his toadie Thomas be "activist"? Or are they "reactionary,reactivist"?

[skippysmom]

25. activist courts

are those that make liberal decisions.

Hence, the SJC is an activist court.

But SCOTUS installing the boy kind? Not activist.

[CO Liberal]

21. Bush Should Talk To His Brother, Neil....

...about the "sanctity of marriage".

[shugah]

22. "sanctity of marriage"

i've always heard about the "sanctity of marriage," and how it is "sacred." i always basically thought "yeah, yeah," and took in in context - never paying much attention to the real meaning of the words. anyway - i just went and checked out the dictionary.

sanctity:
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

which of course, begs the question - what is "sacred"?

sacred
1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

not that it contributes that much to the conversation - i just found it interesting and am not convinced that "sanctity" or "sacred" by definition really apply to the actual "institution" of marriage in our society at all. there are a plethora of marriages that have naught to do with holiness, worship, religion - or are even worthy of respect, for that matter.

oh well, as usual, i find myself wondering exactly what the family values repugs are talking about when they say things like this. :shrug:

[Khephra]

23. Actually it does contribute

Recently with this issue and the flag burning issue, the Right Wing (and some in the Left) have decided that they have the power to judge what actions are sacred and which actions aren't sacred.

They're not acting like politicians, but as Priests.

[shugah]

26. good point

"SACRED because we DECLARE it SACRED"
falls under the third defintion of sacred "3. Made or declared holy."

(OT observation: sacred becomes a rather amusing word if used or repeated several times - almost nonsensical)

[icymist]

27. See! GBLT IS a community that needs protection!

Wasn't the big argument in the '90's that the Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgendered communities already had civil rights and that asking for anti-discrimination laws was asking to grant 'special rights'? Does this not show that, indeed, this community needs to be stated explicitly as a protected people?

[Cannikin]

28. Bush (in the minds of fundies) is justifying homophobia....

Here's a good example of where we're headed from this late breaking news thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=348114

[yellowcanine]

29. I find the fact that George supports homophobes troubling.

The crusade to stop outlaw same sex marriage, whether by individual states or by a constitutional amendment, is motivated by homophobia. There is no way anyone can seriously argue that same sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage in any way. You want to strengthen marriage, figure out why people get divorced.

[slackmaster]

30. Poor Mr. Bush

:nopity:

[antipov1]

31. So...How's that not catching Osama treating you?

OK, George, honestly while we all hope that you will be kicked out of office in a few months and go back to whatever hellhole you were spawned in, try not to fuck up your country anymore than necessary. You don't need to worry about your legacy, you left a 500,000,000,000 deficit, our Grandchildren will be hearing about you, ask Brian Mulroney. So just leave the gay folks alone OK, just a piece of cheap advice from me to you.

[maxsolomon]

32. if its "sacred"

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," sez president moran.

if its "sacred", then why is the state involved. unless he meant "sacred" like the world series.