Bush Says He Would Support Gay Marriage Ban

[wallie_x]

HERE!

So do I.

I do not oppose legal civil unions between homosexuals. But, calling them (and therefore making them equivalent to) hetrosexual marriage: No!!
I see this is a ploy at mind control to get people to think that when two people of the same sex make vows of fidelity in some sort of ceremony that it is the exact same as when a male and female get married.
Sheer lemming mind control ploy.

[Mike]

Originally posted by wallie_x
HERE!
Sheer lemming mind control ploy.

[pickel]

"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman"

I second that Amendment !!!!!!!!!!

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
- mar·riage·abil·i·ty /"mar-i-j&-'bi-l&-tE also "mer-/ noun
- mar·riage·able /'mar-i-j&-b&l also 'mer-/ adjective


"whereby men and women are joined "

nuf said...

[MTAtech]

That's just pandering because the federal government doesn't sanction marriages.

It really shows conservative hypocracy. They champion state's rights only when it fits their agenda.

Dean said on Hardball with Chris Mathews, that it is up to the states and the religious institutions, not the president.

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Dean said on Hardball with Chris Mathews, that it is up to the states and the religious institutions, not the president.

Dean would be right, for once. I don't remember the exact number, but I think 37 states' ratifications are required to create a new Constitutional amendment. The President has little or nothing to do with it other than to encourage or discourage its creation. States' rights in action.

[wallie_x]

MTAtech sez:

That's just pandering because the federal government doesn't sanction marriages.

"..just pandering.." Why do you think your buddy H. Dean has the allegence of mostly young people!?!?!

No it cannot 'sanction' marriage, as that is something a [hetrosexual] couple freely enters into. However, the government does control sociality to an extent. Why do you think they have prescription drugs? If painkillers and other mind-altering drugs were more readily available we would see more socially detrimental choices by people.
However, why don't we let the people decide on this one?
If we did gay 'marriage' loses.

And for you nay-sayers about my 'mind control' statement, who was the champion of idiocy in calling a child in the womb a 'fetus' there by depriving it of any rights what so ever? This 'label' even went so far as designating an unborn child as a non-entity.
Sheer lemming mind control.

[tony_j15]

Kudos to Bush! Well said, Wally.

[MTAtech]

If we let the mob majority decide, we wouldn't have freedom of speech either.

On your drifted point, a fetus is not a citizen and therefore doesn't have the rights as one.

[originel]

like mta said, this govt is founded on the principle of majority rule, minority rights.

besides, to the government marriage means a change in your taxes and that's it, there is NOTHING sacred about what the govt calls marriage anyways. i don't care if the government changes the term to "civil union", which in government terms is equivalent to "marriage" anyhow and might in fact get rid of some of the cunfusion and meaningless arguing over a word that has absolutely nothing sacred about it in the eyes of the government (note the distiction between government and people in the government here).

so my opinion is that everyone who is hung up on the wording of the government is getting upset by nothing more than semantics and just needs give it up already, because that's all we're doing here is fighting over words, not whether or not homosexual marriage is sacred or not.

[MTAtech]

Well said, originel. What civil unions do is make Americans equal under the law. This is a principal we should all believe in.