Bush is a bad, bad man
This makes me so angry and so sad at the same time. On the other hand I’m not worried, and in a way glad he finally said it.
Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
- President George W. Bush, 2/24/04
- President George W. Bush, 2/24/04
He will forevermore be marked in the history books as the president that tried to introduce discrimination into the constitution. Even if he does get an amendment passed, it will be repealed soon enough. But Bush’s hateful insecurity will always remain in the history books.
Yes, he does allow for the possibility of individual states to arrive at a legal non-marriage alternative, but as they say, seperate is not equal.
It doesn’t matter if you get to ride the bus or not. If you have to sit in the back, there is an absense of equality. Ask Rosa Parks.
February 24th, 2004 at 11:07 pm
Bush is a dick. That’s all I have to say. Just “Bush is a dick.”
I seriously don’t see how people still like him. I’m kinda scared of what will happen if he gets elected, and doesn’t have to worry about getting elected for a second term.
Phew… he’s an idiot.
February 25th, 2004 at 11:45 am
I liked what Gavin Newsom had to say about the gay rights of now vs. civil rights of the 1940s-60s. He said something about how if America had waited for public opinion to catch up in order for segregation to end, we’d still be debating the matter today.
I know that about 2/3 of the American public oppose gay marriage, but that certainly doesn’t make it constitutional to add an amendment defining marriage. The 14th amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And while there is technically no “all men are created equal” part of the constitution, it is implied in so much of it and its amendments. That’s actually the biggest thing that would worry me about Bush possibly getting that stupid amendment through - if you have literalist Supreme Court judges, they may rule in favor of it since there is technically nothing explicitly unconstitutional about it.
I hate technicalities.
February 25th, 2004 at 1:01 pm
Although, now that I think about it, if the California thing has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, then I don’t believe they would be able to get an amendment passed. Then, there would be federal court precedent declaring such laws illegal.
Here’s hopin’….
February 25th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
That’s a great quote from Gavin Newsome. And I’ll just restate what I said earlier: I think he will emerge as the Rosa Parks character of this generation.
Now, I was under the impression that it was the California Supreme Court, instead of the US Supreme Court that will be making the ruling. In which case, it likely won’t stop Bush at all.
But there are also a lot of people saying that there is not enough Congressional support for this. 2/3 of Congress must pass this, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it. That might not happen….