Bush goes anti-***..

Z

zelfmoordis

Diabloii.Net Member
Bush goes anti-***..

(CNN) -- President Bush responded Wednesday evening to a decision in support of *** marriage by Massachusetts' highest court by calling the ruling "deeply troubling."

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement. "If activist judges insist on re-defining 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."
Click to expand...

That man is really making an *** out of himself..


link:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/***.marriage/index.html

:wave:

:edit: the word filter doesnt allow the link, what to do?, what to do?
 
Anakha1

Anakha1

Banned
Don't worry about the link. Most people realize they have to replace the asterixs with the proper letters.

I just finished reading that, too. Bush is a moron. He seems to think its up to him, like he knows better than the judges, how to interpret the constitution. I find it shocking how much anti-homosexual sentiment there is among the U.S. populace.

How much more are people going to put up with from him? Are they just going to let him rip up the constitution whenever he disagrees with something? What next? The Supreme Court decides the same thing and he just overrules them? Maybe just remove the rights to freedom whatsoever!

Bush is going to someplace very warm and uncomfortable when he passes on.
 
S

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
The Constitution was never meant to lay out morality for the populace. All the Amendments, with the exception of Prohibition (which was later repealed) deal with either extending our rights or limiting the power of the Government. This type of amendment would be a shocking abuse of the process.
 
Z

zelfmoordis

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
There's already a thread about this subject on the front page. Why don't you post on that one?
Click to expand...
I looked if there already was another post about this but I didn't see one, and for that matter: I still dont see one.

on topic: I would really be surprised if Bush gets re-elected, I just can't imagine that many americans are willing to put up witht his..

:wave:
 
Anakha1

Anakha1

Banned
It's times like these when I'm really glad I live in Canada where we actually fire our politicians for being zealously anti-***.
 
D

dantose

Diabloii.Net Member
Well I do find the role the judiciary is playing here to be "deaply troubling" laws are supposed to come from the legislature or a general vote.
 
Sergeant

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
The Constitution was never meant to lay out morality for the populace. All the Amendments, with the exception of Prohibition (which was later repealed) deal with either extending our rights or limiting the power of the Government. This type of amendment would be a shocking abuse of the process.
Click to expand...
Steel, what about pornography and abortion. Are those not moral issues? Our government has laid out the morality for those, calling pornography free speech or expression and abortion as legal because of a right to choose. Still, both are issues of morality. To many, it violates moral law and to others, it does not. There are many things our government does that defines what is moral and what is not.

Also, I'm sure it's just a matter of grammar or semantics but, I thought you were Canadian? Do you live stateside now? At anyrate, many of the laws of this nation limit or extend the bounds of moral issues. Murder, drugs, pornography, infidelity, ****, incest, child pornography, marriage, abortion and so on. All of these are moral issues the government has ruled on, limiting or extending the bounds of each of these. Creating consequences, good or bad, for those who involve themselves with any one of these issues.
 
M

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Steel, what about pornography and abortion. Are those not moral issues? Our government has laid out the morality for those, calling pornography free speech or expression and abortion as legal because of a right to choose. Still, both are issues of morality. To many, it violates moral law and to others, it does not. There are many things our government does that defines what is moral and what is not.
Click to expand...
Steel was talking about Constitutional amendments. Last I checked, we only had 27 of them and bans on porn and abortions weren't in there anywhere.

It's a moot point really, there's no way 33 states will ratify any sort of ban on marriage.
 
P

Pidder

Diabloii.Net Member
I somewhat agree with Bush on this one, actually. Marriage, as a christian ceremony should be only between a man and a woman, the way the Bible states. Since the christian faith is against homosexuals in general there is no reason why they should marry as christians do. I'm troubled that any homosexual would want to have anything to do with the christian church.

However, homosexual partnerships should of course have the same rights as christian marriages, they're just not christian and shouldn't be treated like they are.

I'm atheist btw.
 
Yaboosh

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
Exactly. Sarge, the president wants a damn amendment banning *** marriages. That is just absolutely ridiculous. Does he even know what the Constitution is? He gets mad that *** marriages are being allowed? Oh well Bush, it aint just your or you Christian buddy's country. Not anymore anyway.

Edit: If you believe that Pidder than Marriages should have no official recognition anyway, if you both have to be Christian, you know, that is how the Christians envisioned marriage, right? That is bull. You get governmental perks for being married, then it isnt decided on by religious tradition. Establishment clause and all.
 
P

Pidder

Diabloii.Net Member
Edit: If you believe that Pidder than Marriages should have no official recognition anyway, if you both have to be Christian, you know, that is how the Christians envisioned marriage, right? That is bull. You get governmental perks for being married, then it isnt decided on by religious tradition. Establishment clause and all.
Click to expand...
No why should there be a difference between to people living together and people telling god they will live together forever (which they won't in most cases), that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that IF there is some official recognition towards the christian ceremony known as marriage, there should be an equal recognition towards *** or straight couples living in partnerships unsanctioned by god. Get my point?

Christian marriages and non-christian partnerships (*** or non-***) should all be equal to the law. I don't know if that's the case in american today, is it?
 
D

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Sergeant said:
Steel, what about pornography and abortion. Are those not moral issues? Our government has laid out the morality for those, calling pornography free speech or expression and abortion as legal because of a right to choose. Still, both are issues of morality. To many, it violates moral law and to others, it does not. There are many things our government does that defines what is moral and what is not.
Click to expand...
Actually I would have to call that the exact opposite of ruling a morality. If pornography and abortion are legal, then it's up to the average citizen to decide his stance isn't it? If he doesn't like porn, or despises abortion, that's his choice. It's when stuff is made illegal that you question whether it's an issue of morality or an issue of law.
 
A

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Pidder said:
No why should there be a difference between to people living together and people telling god they will live together forever (which they won't in most cases), that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that IF there is some official recognition towards the christian ceremony known as marriage, there should be an equal recognition towards *** or straight couples living in partnerships unsanctioned by god. Get my point?

Christian marriages and non-christian partnerships (*** or non-***) should all be equal to the law. I don't know if that's the case in american today, is it?
Click to expand...
Hold on, you think that in the US, a Jewish heterosexual marriage is not recognized the same as a Christian heterosexual marriage? Wow. Where the hell are you getting your information from?

ALL heterosexual marriages, whether performed in a church by a priest, a mosque by an imam, a temple by a rabbi, on the beach by a licensed friend, in a courthouse by a judge, or in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, are recognized by both the state and federal government (barring such things as incest or illegal age differences).

You DO NOT need to be married in a religious ceremony to obtain marriage benefits. Far from it. So long as the person performing the marriage has juristiction to do so, the marriage is legal. Doesn't matter if the couple consecrates themselves to Satan during the ceremony or says that God sucks. Marriage is marriage so long as you have the license.

You're also implying that most homosexuals are atheists. Far from that, as well. Most that I know are at least spiritual, if not deeply religious. Some are Jews, some are Christian, some are sketchy pagan (like Smeg! :D). Many would choose to get married with some sort of diety's blessing.
 
S

Smelly

Diabloii.Net Member
Marriage is Marriage. I don't know why people get their panties in a bunch when they find out a homosexual couple is married. "Oh no, you've offended God!" Well unless I see him striking bolts down at EVERYONE for pissing him off in the slightest, I don't see why people should care if a *** couple gets married. It's not like you walk around with floating bubbles above your head that say "I'M MARRIED" or wear sticky notes or a billboard claiming so. Come on, people. Get a damn grip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top