Novak: Bush*s (Gay) Marriage Decision

[kskiska]

(snip)

Aides said President Bush wanted to concentrate on his mission in Britain without distraction by a domestic social issue. However, he has long since returned to Washington (and made a round trip to Baghdad), without revealing his intentions. In fact, the White House is divided, as is the Republican Party, on an issue Bush cannot avoid.

This is a yes-or-no choice for the president, with a middle course not possible. Without a constitutional amendment, gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life. Bush must decide, therefore, whether that is truly important. Christian conservatives who support him say that it is, transcending abortion in shaping the country's culture.

(snip)

The Massachusetts court has given the state legislature 180 days to end restrictions against same-sex marriage. Simultaneously, the legislators are expected to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, but that change cannot come before the state's voters until the 2006 election. This process opens a period of more than two and one-half years, during which Massachusetts homosexuals could marry each other and adopt children.

Would these same-sex marriage partners after 2006 be deprived of newly enjoyed legal privileges? They would likely appeal to the federal courts, and there is no doubt they would be sustained by the present composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 6 to 3 Lawrence decision on June 26 affirming gay rights is widely viewed as a de facto affirmation of same-sex marriage. Prospects for a new majority on the court in place by then are purely speculative.

more…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031201.shtml

[Maple]

1. I don't see how

you can override your constitution to that extent.

It says clearly 'all men are created equal'

Therefore gays must be treated the same way as everyone else.

They work, they pay taxes, they vote. Solid citizens.

Equal. Just like it says.

An 'amendment' to change that famous statement sounds like pure Animal Farm overwrite...'but some are more equal than others'

[politicat]

2. *sigh* Just what we don't need: * trying to make a tough decision....

Christian conservatives who support him say that it is, transcending abortion in shaping the country's culture.

Okay, first off, I support abortion rights and gay marriage rights - I've performed two gay weddings here in Boulder County where they're legal with my Univeral Life Church ordination. I believe anyone who wants the financial and social imprimatur of marriage should be entitled to it, including groups.

But dammit when it comes down to choosing which would worry me more - the RReich all hyped about gay marriage or all hyped about abortions - That's one nasty decision to have to make. And it's a master-stoke of political divisiveness....

* can piss off 70 million women (using the logic that there are approximately 140 million women in the country and 60% of them are of childbearing age and/or pro-choice enough to vote against him) or he can piss off 28 million gays and lesbians and another 15 million supporters of gay marriage (using the 10% rule and the 30% of americans support gay marriage). Either way, he's going to cause divisiveness in OUR ranks.

If he decides to take another whack at abortion, women on the left are going to be so busy fighting to get our rights restored we won't have time to campaign for a candidate or help our GLBT brethren and sistren. When you make the political *THAT* personal, sometimes other things get left to figure it out later. After all (and this is the rationale that people will use, not necessarily my opinion) "It's not like they're LOSING a right.... it's a right they deserve, but they don't have it. Abortion is a right we're losing... and it affects a lot more people."

Or.... the Amazing Choking Pretzel Man goes for his conAmendment (which thank Loki and all that is holy the framers made HARD to pass!!!). And the left's OTHER major group, gays and lesbians, are too busy fighting the amendment to really get up steam behind a candidate.... and it's lather rinse repeat.

Bloody hell.

Politicat (who is very glad that both decisions are not something that applies to her but is sick to death that it's a possibility at all....)

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Isn't Novak talking complete bollocks?

"This is a yes-or-no choice for the president, with a middle course not possible."

yet:
"Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval."

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/constitution/amendment_process.html

Bush could say "it's up to Congress and the States". In fact he should.