BUSH EFFORT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE WELCOMED

President George W. Bush today declared his support for a constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual marriages. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, praised the president for his decision:

“President Bush did the right thing by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban marriage between two men or two women. Just last week, he discussed this issue with 13 Catholics in the Roosevelt Room of the White House; I was privileged to be there. He announced from the same room today that he has reached a decision.

“It was the collapse of the democratic process that finally forced his hand. For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently defied its mandate to interpret state law, electing instead to issue an edict demanding homosexual marriages. In addition, the mayor of San Francisco has taken the law into his own hands: his authorization of marriage licenses to lesbians and gay men is not in his purview. Therefore, nothing short of a constitutional amendment can stop the tyrannical stampede toward gay marriage.

“The anti-marriage campaign that gay activists have unleashed is backfiring. For the good of children, it must. Marriage is not only about love, it is about a particular structure and a particular function: the structure is one man and one woman; the function is procreation. Nature, not law, denies this opportunity to homosexuals. If marriage were only about love, incest and polygamy would be permitted. It is time we got back to basics. What is needed is a college course called ‘Common Sense 101.’ But it must be taught by men and women in the community—chosen by lottery—not by professors. Unfortunately, too many of the latter have already proven to be deficient in the property of common sense, thus making them ineligible to teach that which they do not possess.

“The Catholic League anxiously awaits what the Catholic candidate for the presidency is going to do. The ball is in John Kerry’s court.”

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Ave
New York, NY 10123
(212) 371-3191
(212) 371-3394 (Fax)
www.catholicleague.org


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

As a Canadian, and an outsider to the US I have to say: I am glad Bush isn't my leader, but I am sure glad he is yours. He has proved himself over and over to be a friend of the pro-life and pro-family movements.

I wonder how this graduate of Bob Jone's U feels about garnering the (faithful) Catholik vote?

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 24, 2004.

Well I can certainly see that our President has a sense of right and wrong. It's ok to sign a bill that allow for secret arrests and suspension of constitutional rights; it's ok to lie to start a war; it's ok to send a bunch of Americans off to die for a made up cause; but allowing people to have CIVIL, non-religious unions is immoral.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

I couldn't agree with you more on that one anti-Bush.

Bush = Big Brother
Bush = A pull toward Stalinism
buth Bush is pro-life and pro-family
And Bush is also from the party that stated "We must get rid of Rum, Rebellion and Romanism."


-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

Glad to have a fellow Bush-basher in the forum. As you can see, they're in short supply here...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 24, 2004.

anti bush, several points...

Well I can certainly see that our President has a sense of right and wrong.

glad youre finally coming around.

It's ok to sign a bill that allow for secret arrests and suspension of constitutional rights;

really? youre pretty anti government, why haven't you been secretly arrested? name me one person you used to know IN PERSON who mysteriously disappeared...

it's ok to lie to start a war;

all the available information at the time said that there were weapons of mass destruction. there was no way to know that that was not true. I still think that there may be, but they are either burried deep or shipped off to another country (or, worse yet, in the hands of terrorists).

it's ok to send a bunch of Americans off to die for a made up cause;

You know, being a member of the military, i take offense at this. You ask those soldiers out there, most not even as old as i am, if they think that they're fighting for some made up cause. Most all of them will tell you you're crazy. what do you know of fighting and dying for a cause? youre not a martyr, youre just another voice without any solutions or backing.

but allowing people to have CIVIL, non-religious unions is immoral.

if youre talking about bush, then theres an objection to this in that bush is ALLOWING civil unions but not allowing marraiges. If youre talking about catholicism, then we do not want people to have civil unions, but it is a comprimise that some of us are willing to make.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 25, 2004.

sorry, we all are allowing this thread to be diverted from the topic of the thread. The topic is a constitutional ammendment on marriage, let's keep to that subject please.

thanks, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Why hasn't our good Moderator banned ''ant-Bush'' from this forum yet? We are sick and tired of the way he/she carries on here. Now he has a Scott sympathizer going the same route. If we have to counter this kind of crap every day, how are we to have time for thinking about Catholic faith? Maybe I will give up this forum for Lent.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2004.

I am becoming more and more inclined to agree with you Eugene. Initially the posts were at least remotely tied to issues currently under discussion in the Catholic faith (gay marriages, abortion, etc.). Of late, his/her posts amount to nothing more than Bush- bashing which I fear is revealing his/her true motives for being here - a forum to air a political agenda. This is clearly not the forum for such political grandstanding and I would ask Anti-Bush and others to confine their criticisms of political leaders as to how they affect the Catholic faith.

Anti-Bush, I’ve had to delete one of your recent posts in another thread owing to a very un-Christian remark you made about the former leader of Iraq. Please refrain from such remarks in the future.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 25, 2004.

"really? youre pretty anti government, why haven't you been secretly arrested? name me one person you used to know IN PERSON who mysteriously disappeared..."

We've already had this argument in the Anarchy 2 forum. Remember? You said the Patriot Act wasn't unconstitutional, I pointed out several parts of the constitution that go against the Patriot Act, you didn't reply (why was that...at least be a man and admit you're wrong...I've done it before...). Anyway, no, I don't personaly know anyone who has been secretly arrested and detained. That doesn;t mean it's not happening. What a stupid argument. Next time someone tries to tell me about SARS, I'll just say "Do you KNOW anyone with SARS?"

Tha Patriot Act allows for secret arrests, indefinite detentions, search without a warrant or probable cause, trial by a secret military tribunal or no trial at all, no access to an attorney, ect., all without any type of warrant, court order, or even a charge. No democracy should have that kind of power. The threat is very real. No I don't personaly know anyone who has been detained. Remember that old passage: "First they came for the Jews. I didn't protest, for I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communist. I did not protest, for I was not a Communist...Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."

"all the available information at the time said that there were weapons of mass destruction. there was no way to know that that was not true. I still think that there may be, but they are either burried deep or shipped off to another country (or, worse yet, in the hands of terrorists). "

That's just stupid. Bush claimed that he had satelite photos and clear proof of Iraq's weapons. That just wasn't true. He didn't. Many of the State Department's "sources" were as much as 15 years old. There was no evidence. Bush LIED. I know that seems hard to beleive, but yes, he lied.

Here's a question: If Saddam had weapons, don't you think he would have USED them when we were INVADING his country? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? If theres a foreign army knocking at the door of your palace, most dictators would use the weapons IF THEY HAD THEM.

"You know, being a member of the military, i take offense at this. "

I'm not ragging on the Amred Forces, man. I'm saying they shouldn't be out there. It's not worth risking their lives. I'm sick of anti- war people being branded as "anti-troops". I support our troops, and that's why I say bring 'em home.

"if youre talking about bush, then theres an objection to this in that bush is ALLOWING civil unions but not allowing marraiges."

Um...no, he's not. In the State of the Union adress, I beleive he used both "gay marriage" and "gay union". He seems to be coming down on both, and I beleive his amendment will forbid any type of gay union.

Tell me, if they called it a "gay union" instead of a marriage, would you still want to ban it?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 25, 2004.

Sorry anti-Bush, but this is where we part ways since I am totally against gay marriage. But I do think a constitutional amendment is stupid though. We saw how the banning of alcohol in this country worked out.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.

Tell me, if they called it a "gay union" instead of a marriage, would you still want to ban it?

Thus, we strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage --by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means. - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 27, 2004.