http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2863151,00.html
Bush: Gay Marriage Ban May Be Too Soon
Thursday July 3, 2003 3:49 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -
President Bush said Wednesday that a constitutional
ban on gay marriage that has been proposed in the
House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court
decision that some conservatives think opens the door
to legalizing same-sex marriages.
``I don't know if it's necessary yet,'' Bush said.
Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications
of the recent Supreme Court hearing.
What I do support is a notion that
marriage is between a man and a woman.''
Bush's words were aimed at calming members of
the GOP's right wing, who are upset about the
Supreme Court decision,
said Patrick Guerriero,
director of the Log Cabin Republicans,
a gay advocacy group.
``I think what you're seeing is a momentary time-out
from the radical right's temper tantrum,'' he said.
In striking down a Texas law that
made homosexual sex a crime,
the Supreme Court on June 26 overturned
its earlier ruling that said states could punish
homosexuals for having sex.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia
fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
The
"opinion dismantles the structure of
constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between
heterosexual and homosexual unions,
insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,'' Scalia wrote.
The ruling specifically said that the
court was not addressing that issue,
but Scalia warned, `
"Do not believe it.''
The Supreme Court's decision was a broad ruling
addressing privacy, and gay rights groups are saying
they will use it to push for more legal rights.
"We have a powerful new weapon in our legal battles
on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
people, but the impact of this ruling also stretches well
beyond the walls of our nation's courtrooms,''
Kevin Cathcart,
director of New York-based Lambda Legal,
a gay rights advocacy group,
said Wednesday in announcing a new online
resource that maps out how the group will
use the ruling to win full recognition of
same-sex relationships, among other things.
Legal authorities are also combing the decision
to see what its impact will really be on other gay
rights issues.
"I don't know that there is any clear
assessment - that anybody has at this point -
about the legal ramifications
of a just-made decision,''
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
The president was asked about whether he
supported a federal constitutional amendment
that would define marriage as a union between
a man and a woman during an impromptu news
conference that followed his announcement of
a new global AIDS ambassador.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.,
was the main sponsor of the proposal
offered May 21 to amend the Constitution.
It was referred on June 25 to the House
Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
To be added to the Constitution,
the proposal must be approved by two-thirds
of the House and the Senate and ratified by
three-fourths of the states.
On Sunday,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.,
said the Supreme Court's decision on gay sex
threatens to make the American home a place
where criminality is condoned.
He said he supported the proposed constitutional
amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the
United States.
Banning, prohibiting, regulating, and confiscating is all government -
both left and right - is about. It always only turns on what is banned,
prohibited, regulated and confiscated, how much, and in whose favor.
If you believe in more freedom ban more government. If you believe in
your freedom but not the next person's ask for more government.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
torresD wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2863151,00.html
>
>Bush: Gay Marriage Ban May Be Too Soon
>
>Thursday July 3, 2003 3:49 AM
>
>...
>
Werner Hetzner wrote:
>
> Banning, prohibiting, regulating, and confiscating is all government -
> both left and right - is about. It always only turns on what is banned,
> prohibited, regulated and confiscated, how much, and in whose favor.
>
> If you believe in more freedom ban more government. If you believe in
> your freedom but not the next person's ask for more government.
> http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
That's not right. Without regulation and banning and prohibiting, you
would have to concern yourself with those tasks to a much higher degree
than you do when government does those jobs properly. You would be less
free if you had to do those tasks yourself, because you have to spend
most of your own time doing them.
Libertarians would be nicer people if they didn't keep opening their
mouths just because they can.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Martin W. Smith wrote:
>Werner Hetzner wrote:
>
>
>>Banning, prohibiting, regulating, and confiscating is all government -
>>both left and right - is about. It always only turns on what is banned,
>>prohibited, regulated and confiscated, how much, and in whose favor.
>>
>>If you believe in more freedom ban more government. If you believe in
>>your freedom but not the next person's ask for more government.
>>http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
>>
>>
>
>That's not right. Without regulation and banning and prohibiting, you
>would have to concern yourself with those tasks to a much higher degree
>than you do when government does those jobs properly. You would be less
>free if you had to do those tasks yourself, because you have to spend
>most of your own time doing them.
>
>Libertarians would be nicer people if they didn't keep opening their
>mouths just because they can.
>
>martin
>
Oh! You are still under the delusion that government is of by and for
"The People". Explain it to the parents of children in failing schools.
Your are also still under the delusion that government is free. The
People work a third of their lives paying for taxes. A what point do you
think you lose your freedom? http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/About.shtml
Werner Hetzner wrote:
>
> Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
> >Werner Hetzner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Banning, prohibiting, regulating, and confiscating is all government -
> >>both left and right - is about. It always only turns on what is banned,
> >>prohibited, regulated and confiscated, how much, and in whose favor.
> >>
> >>If you believe in more freedom ban more government. If you believe in
> >>your freedom but not the next person's ask for more government.
> >>http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's not right. Without regulation and banning and prohibiting, you
> >would have to concern yourself with those tasks to a much higher degree
> >than you do when government does those jobs properly. You would be less
> >free if you had to do those tasks yourself, because you have to spend
> >most of your own time doing them.
> >
> >Libertarians would be nicer people if they didn't keep opening their
> >mouths just because they can.
> >
> >martin
> >
>
> Oh! You are still under the delusion that government is of by and for
> "The People". Explain it to the parents of children in failing schools.
>
> Your are also still under the delusion that government is free. The
> People work a third of their lives paying for taxes. A what point do you
> think you lose your freedom? http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/About.shtml
The point we were discussing has nothing to do with either of your
peevish complaints about government. The point is that if you yourself
had to do the regulating, banning, and prohibiting that the government
does properly, either your free time would be severely more restricted
than it is now, or you would die of food poisoning, or in a high speed
head-on collision, or you would die from ineffective medicine, or
incompetent medical advice, or untreated water, or raw sewage running
down your street, or rat infestations, or you would be shot by an angry
citizen who would shoot you in a dispute because there would be no law
against murder.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: mws@no-spam
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
"torresD" <torresD30@no-spam> wrote in message
news:35RMa.1022$46.488@no-spam
[snip]
> Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia
> fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
I wonder what people would pay to force Scalia to watch 2 men having sex.
I'll start out at $20 (c'mon, I'm a college student).
Stiner
--
. . .That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
-- The Declaration of Independence
