Gay Marriage in SF, and is Chicago Next?

[lukpac]

I caught a bit of Wolf Blitzer over lunch today. He had on two people, one a (*flaming*) homosexual, the other some kind of fag hater. The straight guy kept saying how it wasn't about oppressing gays, but rather "protecting" marriage. He then proceeded to imply that gay marriage is why so many kids are born out of wedlock in Sweden, that if gays could marry nobody would care about getting married anymore, and went on to say "homosexuality is tragic". Uh huh.

Oh, here we go:

NEWS FROM CNN

'Hot Topics' With Karel Bouley, Robert Knight

Aired February 25, 2004 - 12:35   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush has set off an explosive debate over the Constitution and the meaning of the word "marriage." Even some members of his own party say it tough to win passage of a constitutional amendment the president has endorsed defining marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Here to debate this important issue, Karel Bouley, who is a radio talk show host at KGO Radio in -- are you in San Francisco or Los Angeles?

KAREL BOULEY, KGO RADIO: I broadcast from Los Angeles but I'm heard in San Francisco.

BLITZER: OK, good. And Robert Knight is with Concerned Women for America. Actually, he's the director of the Cultural and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

What's wrong, Karel, with what the president has now proposed, a formal constitutional amendment that would define marriage for what it's been for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, as that of a union between a man and woman?

BOULEY: Well, there are three things wrong with it, Wolf. First of all, it's the only amendment that would ever be put in the Constitution to take away rights. We already know that it's not going to pass, so this is a weapon of mass distract.

We're being pulled away from the real issues of this election. He was losing by double digits to an unnamed Democrat. And he got a wedge issue, and he got it out there.

When you said that as for thousands and thousands of years, that's actually incorrect. If you read the book by John Boswell (ph), he actually tells you, in Roman empire, in Catholicism, there have been many religions and many sects that has accepted same-sex marriage throughout the years. So the historical aspect of that actually is not correct. There has been sanctioned same-sex marriages throughout history.

BLITZER: All right. Robert Knight -- let's let Robert Knight respond to those first two points. We'll get to your third point in a moment.

BOULEY: Great.

ROBERT KNIGHT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Well, let's deal with John Boswell (ph), first. He's been thoroughly repudiated. Even Andrew Sullivan in the pages of "The New Republic" took him to task for falsifying history to try to make his point about same-sex marriage, particularly when it regards Christianity.

But the larger point is, the president saw a need because of what's going on in San Francisco with the lawlessness, the issuance of counterfeit licenses, judges out of control in Massachusetts, the mayor of Chicago now saying, hey, I think I'll join the lawless parade and start issuing marriage certificates against the law of the state of Illinois, by the way.

So I think the President had to act. He had to say, look, this is beyond politicians, judges. We have to preserve marriage as a union of a man and woman because it's so essential to our well being.

We can't do without it. Homosexuals can marry on their own, they can do all sorts of things. But when you bring the law into it, you bring everyone into it.

BLITZER: All right.

What about that, Karel?

BOULEY: Well, you know, it's amazing that this argument always centers around what America wants. Let's remember that women got the right to vote by one vote. That, you know, 80 percent of America was for slavery.

Look, when I hear someone say that it goes beyond the courts, and they start talking about activist judges, how come if the judges are ruling in their favor, like opening up Roe v. Wade again, no one screams about that? But if they're just trying to give 10 to 15 percent of America -- tax-paying Americans, I might add -- the same rights as someone of a different gender, all of a sudden they're activist judges. I want judges to interpret the Constitution.

BLITZER: All right.

Robert, go ahead. Respond.

KNIGHT: Come on. Even the gay human rights campaign in its brief to the Supreme Court said there was only 2.5 percent of men who are home sexual and 1.5 percent of women. I don't know where you get 15 percent.

BOULEY: Those numbers are inaccurate, first of all. They're inaccurate

KNIGHT: Why would they use them?

BLITZER: All right. Forget about the numbers. What about the substance of the debate?

Robert, why should whatever percentage of homosexuals, lesbians -- they're all American citizens -- why shouldn't they be allowed to do what all other American citizens are allowed to do; namely, get married?

KNIGHT: Well, they can, because the requirements of marriage are very simple. It's the uniting of the two sexes. And that is open to anybody with certain requirements by ages and blood limitations and that sort of thing. It's not about sexual orientation.

It's about the uniting of man and women in marriage to form families. And that has to be protected within the law, because we can't do without it. Look at Scandinavia, where they've had gay marriage for a couple of decades. Kids are being born out of wedlock at rate of 70 or 80 percent. They're being raised by the government.

BOULEY: You're blaming that on gay marriage?

KNIGHT: No, I'm not. I'm saying gay marriage accelerated an already bad trend in Scandinavia because it said, we don't care anymore what the sex is, we can throw whole sex out.

BLITZER: One at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

KNIGHT: Well, let me finish, Karel.

BOULEY: Go ahead.

KNIGHT: In Scandinavia, they get the idea that marriage was so flexible that it was no longer necessary or unique, so why even marry anymore. And we're afraid of that happening here if we don't move to protect marriage.

BOULEY: First of all, by people wanting to join the institution, that's not saying why would people marry anymore. Second of all, I am so sick of people throwing the word "family" around like it's exclusive to heterosexuals. Every gay and lesbian person in America comes from a family, and usually a heterosexual family.

Dick Cheney's daughter, the lesbian, came from a heterosexual marriage. Pete Knight here in California, who got the Knight initiative, his son is gay and had to go to Vermont. Don't we want to build a better world for our children? What is Dick Cheney telling his daughter? What is Pete Knight telling his son?

This is completely ridiculous. You want your family values, that's fine. Marriage is about property. It is about rights of succession.

KNIGHT: No, it's not.

BOULEY: Marriage is about legally being able to have rights when your partner dies, when they're in the hospital, when you want to buy a home.

BLITZER: All right.

KNIGHT: You can have all those rights anyway by a simple legal means.

BOULEY: No, you cannot. And that's a disingenuous argument.

KNIGHT: Yes, you can.

BOULEY: Why am I involved in a wrongful death lawsuit then, where they say I have no standing because I couldn't say "I do?"

BLITZER: Robert, go ahead.

KNIGHT: Karel, let me ask you, if it's about rights and benefits, and so forth, California legislators voted a very sweeping domestic partners bill, giving virtually all the rights of marriage. And yet they're still breaking the law in San Francisco. They're saying, well, that's not what it's about. It's about being affirmed by the public.

When you put it into the law, you force it on all institutions and organizations, right down to the Boy Scouts, right down to children in schools. You'll be teaching them, hey, there's nothing wrong with two men having sex; it's the same as mom and dad. That's a lie, and when you put it into law, you force it on other people.

BOULEY: That is a lie based on your Christian beliefs. That is not a lie...

KNIGHT: That's biology.

BOULEY: This is for the courts. And really not for your or I to debate.

KNIGHT: You don't want the people involved, do you?

BLITZER: Robert, do you support government-sanctioned civil unions between gay partners?

KNIGHT: No, I don't, because I think homosexuality is tragic. It takes lives early. It shortens the idea of family life.

It's something you steer people away from rather than tour it. And the government shouldn't be putting incentives into the law to encourage people to remain trapped in wrong and destructive behavior. Why would we do that?

BOULEY: Wolf, I have maintained this is not about marriage, because marriage is a little process. This is about a referendum against gays and lesbians. And as your guest just perfectly illustrate by saying homosexuality is tragic, well, you know what?

KNIGHT: It's wrong.

BOULEY: I don't care whether you think it's tragic. I'm protected by the same Constitution that you are for this very reason. So zealots on any side cannot step in, left of right, and say this is the way it's going to be.

KNIGHT: You mean like Mayor Newsom? Mayor Newsom just tearing up the law? I would say that's....

(CROSSTALK)

BOULEY: Well, first of all, AB-25, which you so state here in California, which I testified for in the Senate, only grants 13 rights to gays and lesbians. So when you say it grants the sweeping 300-plus benefits under law to gays and lesbians, you are factually incorrect. In fact...

KNIGHT: I said virtually all. All the important stuff.

BOULEY: It's - 13 is not 300. That's not virtually all. I'm sorry, that's fuzzy math.

BLITZER: Guys, we're almost out of time. But, very, very briefly, a final thought from you, Robert, and then I'll let Karel make a final thought and we'll wrap it up.

KNIGHT: OK. This is being reformed as bigotry. Anybody who believes in marriage is now a bigot. And I think Americans should reject that argument.

But look what's happened in California, where they passed the Domestic Partners Act. Right on its heels, they passed a law that punishes businesses, even run by devout Christians, Jews and Muslims, if they don't subsidize homosexual relationships. That forces a businessman to choose between god and Caesar. That's the kind of tyranny we will see if you put homosexuality into the law and then impose it on everybody else.

BLITZER: All right.

Karel?

BOULEY: When we talk about tyranny, let's talk about the tyranny and presumptiveness of a government that wants to put discrimination inside of the law. In fact, inside of the very document the framers said was there to protect it. That, to me, is tyrannical. And that, to me, is extreme.

That, to me, is right wing. And that needs to stay out of the marriage arena. And to say that gays and lesbians that want to get married are going to damage the institution, I think Britney Spears getting drunk and getting annulled 14 hours later, or President Bush's brother having strange hookers show up at his door and then having to get a divorce, I think that does a lot more to tear down the strength of marriage in this country than long-term couples who want to commit to a monogamous long-term relationship.

BLITZER: All right. Hold on, guys. Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there. Next time, Karel and Robert, both of you are going to tell our viewers how you really feel about this subject.

KNIGHT: Oh, yes. We're shy.

BLITZER: Thank you very much, Karel and Robert. Appreciate it very much. This very serious debate not going away. It will be around for some time.

[Rspaight]

I think the fact that Robert is a member of the Concerned Women for America sort of says everything right there.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Not to mention he's the *director*.

[Xenu]

At least it wasn't Sandy Rios. She drives me nuts.


I really hate the "homosexuality leads to early death" statistic...it's as intellectually dishonest as saying "Rock 'n Roll leads to death." Basically, what they do is study the period that homosexuality has been, well, an open issue. GEE, THE AIDS EPIDEMIC REALLY FUCKS THE STASTISTICS UP, DOESN'T IT?

And fuck, the people who DIDN'T die early from that...HAVEN'T DIED YET. SO THEY AREN'T EVEN WEIGHED IN (that's the fun part of the early-Rock-n-Roller death stastistic...it's only been around for 60 years, and the people who didn't "die early" are still around)

Then there's crap like "Well, anal sex (as if this is exclusive to gays) causes x and x disease." That's like saying that vaginal sex leads to breech births...it might, but it doesn't necessarily.

I can't believe that lots of the proponents of those crappy "we're just showing you the HONEST, SCIENTIFIC TRUTH" hackjob arguments believe them.

[Rspaight]

Jasper, Alabama must be a charming little town. From the Know-Your-Enemy department:

Sodom and Gomorrah revisited

From the Copydesk
Susan Sanford

Published February 20, 2004 8:41 PM CST

Who would have thought it would happen this early in the game of politics and moral decay.

We now have activist judges, mayors, governors, etc., who go against the will of the great majority of citizens in this nation (forget that it is against the law in most of the nation!) and declare that it is the "right" of homosexual men and women to "marry."

Christians need to come up with some ammunition against this grievous sin, and soon. As it stands now, our heads are, as it were, spinning with all the degrading developments that have taken place in the past few weeks.

Where will we get this ammunition to fight against "spiritual wickedness in high places"? From the Word of God - the only place that, in the end, will matter.

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12

The mayor of San Francisco (where else would it begin) has thrown the law books out the window and the will of most of the people be damned. He has said that no matter the law, he invited any and every homosexual couple to come and be "married,"then he swore in additional clerks to administer this great disservice to humanity.

My first question is, do these people not read the Bible? Have they forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah? At what point do they think the Lord changed His mind about the sin of homosexuality?

Not only that, but we should be worried that this group and their supporters have worked diligently to have themselves - common sinners, according to God's word - declared a special minority. So now, if you stand up and speak out against them, you are automatically "discriminating" against them.

In the book of Genesis when God had created Adam, he looked around and saw that Adam was alone. As everybody knows, he created Eve .."made he a woman, and brought her unto the man... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:22, 24

He created a special person for the man - not another man. He created them in such a way that they could "be one flesh." Notice he said that a man should leave his father and mother - not his father's "partner" or "lover."

I want to say here and now that there is no special protection for this group anywhere in the Bible. Quite the contrary.

The Israelites were commanded as part of the law given to Moses and Aaron: "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. In the beginning, those who were found guilty of such a sin were simply executed. God's opinion of the act of homosexuality was that it was a sin worthy of death.

Oh, you say, but that was in the Old Testament. The Christians of the church in Corinth were commanded: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God: Be not deceived: "neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ... shall inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9-10

That seems pretty plain to me. Those who commit unnatural acts with one another will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul exhorted the members of the church in Rome that "God had given them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves ... and God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly ..."Romans 1:24, 26, 27

The actions of these people were listed along with other practices that are still considered sin: fornication, wickedness, covetousness, murder, backbiters, haters of God, proud, despiteful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without natural affection, unmerciful...

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.

That also seems crystal clear. Those who do such things, and those who think they are amusing - or innocent - are worthy of death.

Doesn't seem as if the Lord is accepting of the sin of homosexuality at all.

And Christians had better put on the breastplate of righteousness and the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The battle for souls has begun.

Susan Sanford is the copy editor for the Daily Mountain Eagle. She can be reached at 205-221-2840, or e-mailed at jasper@mountaineagle.com

[lukpac]

This is pretty good...check out the part when they're asking what exactly would "go wrong" with society:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 224-5.html

1:00 P.M. EST

[stuff on Iran]

Q Scott, on the day's other big announcement, four years ago, in the South Carolina primary debate, the President was asked, "So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?" And the response of the President was, "The state can do what they want to do." When did the President change his mind that the issue of gay marriage was not a matter for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President has always firmly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. He has always held that view. And I think what you're referring to is that the President has talked about how states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements. And that's what the President is referring to.

Q The words in the question were "gay marriage," and I do realize that the President has opposed gay marriage, but when did he --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President's view was very well-known during the campaign of 2000, that he believes marriage is a sacred institution. And he supported efforts to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage.

Q Which is what I just said. But my question was, to go to the actual substance of my question, was, when did the President change his mind that this was not an issue for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I dispute the premise of your question. His views have always been well-known on this very issue.

Q Yes, but he always described it as a state issue. Now he's describing it as a federal issue. When did he change his mind?

MR. MCCLELLAN: No, no, he said that states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Scott, is this an issue that the President wants to raise in the campaign and try to draw a distinction with Senator Kerry, who opposes a constitutional amendment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, it's an issue of national importance. You heard the President address that earlier, in his remarks. There is confusion -- growing confusion in this country right now because of this issue. And that is why we need clarity. The President specifically called for this debate to be conducted in a civil manner, without bitterness or anger, as he put it, and with respect for one another.

The President recognizes that an issue of national importance like this requires leadership and requires a President to make decisions, and then to raise the level of discourse and have a civil discussion on this issue. And that's what he's done.

Q Does that mean that he will try to draw a distinction with Senator Kerry? You know, he said -- the President said last night, it's all about choices. Is he going to try to say that this is what he chooses, and here's what I choose?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President is going to continue to fight to protect the sanctity of marriage. I think you have to look at this in the context of recent events. We cannot pretend that the events in Massachusetts or San Francisco are not happening. And that's why the President is providing leadership, and making a decision based on principle. And he will continue to talk about the importance of protecting this sacred institution.

Q Scott, two questions. Just to follow up on John's, he was asked in that debate specifically about gay marriage, not about states having the right to form contractual arrangements, domestic partnerships or civil unions. So did he misspeak, when asked directly about gay marriage, when he answered, it should be up to the states?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you is that the President has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman; that it should be an institution that is protected. And that's what the President has always made very clear. John was talking about a change, and I don't see that.

Q Well, but in that actual quote he was directly asked, and the words, "gay marriage" were used in the question to him.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think the President's views are very well known, and they are what they have always been.

Q Okay. On the matter of civil unions -- I don't want to get bogged down in the legalisms, if I could just draw a picture. What does the President believe should happen in this country, if the state of Vermont, Massachusetts, California, wherever, establishes the kind of domestic partnerships that he says he favors, and a same-sex couple then moves?

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, I'm sorry, that he says he favors --

Q He says it should be up to the state, I'm sorry.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q And then a same-sex couple moves from the state where their partnership is recognized, to Texas, to wherever -- should they have the same rights in the new state that their old state gave them?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that, actually, the Defense of Marriage Act states that, one, for federal law, marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it goes on to state that states are not required to recognize relationships from other states that are "treated as" marriage. So that's what the Defense of Marriage spells out. And the President has strongly supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

Q Okay, so he doesn't think that same-sex couples should be able to move out of a state that recognizes their partnership into one --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, it says "treated as" marriage, and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which addresses that issue.

Q Scott, can I have a rebuttal, since you mischaracterized my question?

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on one second.

Q When the President says that the states should be free to pick legal arrangements other than marriage, does that include civil unions, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, states can make their own decisions with regard to legal arrangements. That would include hospital visitation rights, it would include insurance benefits, it would include civil unions -- we talked about this earlier. The President has made it very clear that he would not have supported it for the state of Texas.

Q Civil union?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

Q Okay. Let me ask one more question. There's this interesting sentence here where he says that "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." So how does gay marriage weaken society, in the President's view?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this goes to the issue of an institution that is enduring and lasting. The President said in his remarks that this is the most fundamental institution in our civilization. And he talked about, in his State of the Union, about the importance of defending these kinds of enduring institutions, that some things -- that some things never change. He actually addressed that in his State of the Union address. And he talked about the importance of making sure that the people's voice is heard, as well.

Q But specifically, how does allow -- how does allowing gay marriage, allowing two people of the same sex to marry, how does that weaken our society?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a strong value of our society. It's a strong value of our civilization. And we should protect and defend those kinds of enduring institutions in our society.

Q Did the President consult anyone else besides those who are pro his position? You gave us a long list this morning --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, actually, the --

Q Was anyone against his premise?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, the President arrived at this decision in a very thoughtful and deliberate manner. He considered a wide variety of views on this issue. The White House Domestic Policy Council and the Counsel's Office was very involved in this process, at the direction of the President. The White House consulted constitutional scholars, academic scholars, and theologians, religious leaders, congressional leaders, state leaders, and others. So we looked at a wide variety of views and the President certainly took into consideration the views of the American people when he was looking at this matter. And then he essentially -- he essentially came to a decision over the weekend, but he made a final decision this morning to go ahead with this announcement.

Q What does he think the penalty should be, they should go to jail if they break this law that eventually he hopes to have?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes that we should protect and defend the sanctity of marriage, Helen. That's what this is about. And there are people --

Q They should go to jail?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's not the way the President is looking at it. The President is looking at this from making sure that activist judges and local officials don't redefine this enduring institution in our society.

Q You say, "and the President believes it's important to protect institutions in our society." But I wonder if the American people deserve a little bit more of an explanation about what the downside of all of this is. Can you explain how the President arrived at this view? He talks frequently about his faith; is that a major component in arriving at his decision about gay marriage? What specifically would happen to our society, as Elisabeth alluded to --

MR. McCLELLAN: His beliefs and his principles.

Q Hold on -- what specifically would happen to society if same-sex couples were allowed to marry?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about the values that we should stand up and defend. The President made it very clear in his remarks that this is an enduring institution of our civilization. It goes to the very fabric of our society when he talks about this issue.

Q So the fabric of society would break down if men were allowed to marry other men and women other women?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why the President believes that this is an important value and enduring institution to defend. And that's what -- so he's looking at this --

Q What would happen to marriage if same-sex couples were allowed to marry? I just don't -- I'm trying to understand the President's thinking. Is this purely based on his religious faith? How does he arrive at this?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is based on principle, it's based on his long-held belief. And I would remind you that this is something that enjoys -- that protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage enjoys widespread support in this country.

Q And I'd ask Democrats this, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: The congressional -- Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. But there's no assurances that activist judges won't seek to strike that down. And I would remind you that 38 states already have made it very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Q Scott, following up on that. On the faith issue, the President has talked about -- this is intertwined with faith, but the Bible has been hotly contested on this issue. Some are saying that it's not in the Bible; some are saying it is. Where in the Bible has the President found this specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the President described it from his views about where his beliefs are, and the principle of this decision.

Q He talks about faith a great deal. And he talks about he -- his foundation, his new foundation after 40 is based on faith. Where in the Bible --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about how he came to the decision and why he came to this decision. He spelled out the very reasons for acting on this issue now.

Q Okay, well, maybe I could rephrase the question. You say that the President has talked to theologians. What part of the Bible did they particularly focus in on to help the President to come up with --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they're actually religious leaders from across the spectrum, with a wide variety of views.

Q But where did they focus in on in the Bible? I mean, because this is a hotly contested issue. Some people say it's in; some people say it's not in the Bible.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and you're welcome to religious leaders about that.

Q We understand there's the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, but did he use that? We want to know.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he talked about, in the Roosevelt Room, about the reasons how he came to this -- how he came to this decision --

Q I understand what you're saying, but we want to know where the foundation of faith is on this issue. Is it Sodom and Gomorrah? Is it some other part of the Bible?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can consult religious scholars if you want to know those issues.

Q I have, and I'm asking you.

Q Why do this now? And why isn't this an issue to be worked -- to work its way up through the courts?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually, the President talked about it in his remarks. He talked about the events that are unfolding in Massachusetts and in San Francisco and in other areas, including in New Mexico. And in Massachusetts, you have a Supreme Court that has ruled on this issue. And the Supreme Court has said that by mid-May that the state should allow for the issuing of licenses to same-sex couples. And so that's within two months from now. In San Francisco, you have people that are simply ignoring the law. And so these events were unfolding.

It's also important to recognize that the constitutional process can take some time. It can go anywhere from three months to over 200 years, if you look at the 27th Amendment.

Q Right, but we also have a U.S. Supreme Court. Was it the President's judgment that this would not make its way to the Supreme Court, and therefore --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in Massachusetts, it was a state issue. And so the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled there's no appeal to the -- on the Massachusetts -- above the Massachusetts Supreme Court on that state matter. Now the legislature has the option of acting, but the legislature met and they chose not to act at this point in time. And so you have -- two months from now, you're going to have a state that will be forced to start allowing same-sex couples to marry.

And keep in mind, the President believes it's very important, I think when we have this discussion, to treat everybody with dignity and respect. It's -- but this is a principled decision about an enduring and lasting institution in our civilization. And that's why the President came to the decision that he did.

Q But you're saying the judgment was made that this could not be resolved in the court system, that it would not make its way to the Supreme Court, that this was the only way to deal with this because the Supreme Court would never be able to definitively resolve this issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President spoke to that in his remarks. He said that the only recourse for the people now is to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Q One last thing. You say that this will add clarity. It can take as long as seven years to take this -- to complete this process on a constitutional amendment. What happens in the meantime? How does this provide --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's another reason for acting, because we need to --

Q How does this provide clarity? It seems to me that, in the meantime, the states can continue to act as they wish and you've got seven years of states allowing gay marriage. Does this do anything to stop that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Jim, that's why I pointed out the widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage. And I pointed to the fact that 38 states have already passed measures to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and --

Q But those are not the ones you're worried about; you're worried about the other states.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and, again, I think the support is across the country. More and more states have acted on this very issue. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Q Well, what happens in the meantime? I mean, while we're working on a constitutional amendment, while you're begging members of Congress to take this up -- about which many Republicans are skeptical -- what happens?

MR. McCLELLAN: And here you go to the very issue of why acting now. I mean, he spelled out the very reasons, some of which I mentioned. And it's also important to move as soon as possible on the constitutional process. And the first step is for Congress to act, and then it will go to state legislatures.

Q But you're acknowledging we could have seven years of gay marriage in states that decide it's okay before we get a constitutional amendment, if it takes that long.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President is leading and making a principled decision on a very important issue, an issue of national importance. And he's going to continue to make it clear that this is an institution that we need to protect and defend, for the reasons that he stated. And it's important that that process begin now. But people -- obviously, in California there is discussion going on right now in the state about making sure that they're abiding by the California family code, making sure that individuals in San Francisco are abiding by that code.

Q Scott, to follow up on that, if I might. Congressman Dreier -- sorry, Jacobo.

MR. McCLELLAN: Just jump in.

Q Well, it follows on what you're saying now. Congressman Dreier says that a constitutional amendment is premature and the court system should be allowed to work in this case. Obviously, he's chairman of the Rules Committee and can control the flow of legislation on the floor. Is this a problem? Have you all talked to him about this?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have talked with congressional leaders. We are going to continue to talk with congressional leaders as we move forward on this issue. We will be working with them on specific language for an amendment. And the President, as you heard, urged Congress to move promptly on this very issue.

Q The Democratic National Committee has criticized President Bush for the statement claiming that it's a political ploy in an election year.

MR. McCLELLAN: And? Do you have a question?

Q Your comments.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I talked about early on, how there -- you have to look at the events that are unfolding. There is confusion and division going on in this country right now. That is why we need to bring clarity to this issue of national importance. The President has made it very clear that this debate should be conducted in a civil manner. He said that in his very remarks. He said, "We should conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong conviction with kindness and goodwill and decency."

The President made it very clear that everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, but that this enduring institution is something that is important to defend, for the reasons that he spelled out. And when it comes to an issue of such national significance, it's important for leaders to make decisions; it's important for leaders to raise the level of discourse and work to conduct this discussion in a very civil way. And that's what the President is doing.

[Haiti]

Q Back on gay marriage. What do you say to moderates in your own party who say that the President can no longer be taken seriously as a compassionate conservative, as he likes to call himself, by endorsing this kind of amendment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know who is saying that, number one. But the President is someone -- well, who is that?

Q Well, for one, there are some gay rights activists, Log Cabin Republicans, and more broadly, some --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that people recognize that the President arrived at this decision based on his long-held beliefs and based on principle. And they recognize that the President is someone who believes that everybody in our society should be treated with respect and dignity -- he has always spoken out very forcefully on that matter -- and that while we may disagree on this issue, we can have a very civil discussion about it.

[Kerry stuff]

Q Trying to put this in broader context -- the campaign thus far has been about job creation; it's been about the war in Iraq, the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. These are things the President talks about from time to time. How important is a constitutional amendment to him? Is this something that he is going to be thinking about a lot?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he said how important it is. He said it's an issue of national importance. That's why he came to the decision that he did. But the two biggest priorities before this country are winning the war on terrorism and strengthening our economy. And this President is leading and acting decisively on those highest of priorities. He is also leading and acting decisively on other priorities.

[bin Laden]
[Libya]
[terrorism]

Q Does the President support -- propose specific language for an amendment? Or will he support the existing language already before Congress?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, we want to work closely with Congress throughout this process. We will work closely with them on the specific language. He has indicated that Congresswoman Musgrave's legislation meets some of the principles he has talked about.

Q Will the President press for a vote in Congress on this before the recess, before the end of the year?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from the President, and he urged Congress to act promptly. And you've heard from me that I think we should

-- that Congress should move as quickly as possible. As I indicated, sometimes the constitutional process can take some time.

[9/11 / Patriot Act]

Q You said that as governor of Texas he would not have supported a civil unions law. But am I correct in assuming that now he would like to see an America where states can enact civil union laws for homosexuals, but not call it marriage? Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this debate centers on marriage, and the definition of marriage. And some people have sought to redefine this sacred institution. And that's why the President has come out strongly in support of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Q I just want to know if maybe you can explain what the President's view is as to the difference between a civil union and marriage. Because many people might argue that in the eyes of government, even heterosexuals married is really just a civil contract between those two people to protect them legally and financially --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he defined marriage. He believes marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. That's how he would define it.

Q Is there a difference that goes beyond semantics?

MR. McCLELLAN: Legal arrangements that states want to enter into, they certainly have that right. The President has made that very clear. This is a debate about marriage, and an enduring and lasting institution in this country.

[Russia]

Q Before the President issued his statement this morning on gay marriage, did he discuss it with the Vice President? And secondly, is there a particular reason why he didn't make this announcement last night, during his major speech?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made a final decision to proceed with this announcement this morning. I've already indicated that.

Q And did he discuss it with the Vice President?

MR. McCLELLAN: But, obviously, recent events have been having an influence on his decision. And the Vice President is very well-aware of the decisions the President makes.

Q One more on the threat the President sees from gay marriage. What is, in the President's view, a greater threat to this enduring institution of marriage, a same-sex couple establishing a stable marriage, or the staggering divorce rate, the out-of-wedlock birth level and travesties like Britney Spear's marital fiasco? (Laughter.) What --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are so many different things in there, but --

Q And then what is he going to do -- which is the greater threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think -- look back to the President's State of the Union address, and he talked about the importance of values that we hold so dearly in this country. And he talked about the importance of changing our culture, and ushering in a responsibility era. He's long held those views.

Q So he would like to see a lower divorce rate, lower out-of-wedlock births, and Britney Spears behave herself? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually, I think if you look at some of the steps that we've taken in the welfare reform reauthorization, we have proposals in there to help strengthen marriage and help individuals.

Q Scott, can I just ask again, the same sort of question? If he supports allowing the states to choose civil unions, how does a civil union not weaken society --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, and let me --

Q -- in the way a gay marriage does?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and let me make clear, he has said that he would have opposed it for his state of Texas. And what he has said and always said is that states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements. That's what he's made clear. When you're saying, support things, that's not quite the way he looks at it.

Q Does he feel that allowing civil -- the states to choose civil unions would weaken society?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that you have some 38 states -- this issue is about marriage, Elisabeth. This is about the definition of marriage, and he believes strongly that it is a sacred institution, and that it's important to protect it.

Q What's the difference between a civil union and marriage? Is it religious involvement -- is it because marriage is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think different states have different --

Q What does the President think?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- different benefits that they look to address.

Q But what does the President think is the difference between a civil union and marriage?

MR. McCLELLAN: Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I don't know how I can make it more clearly that the President has said that repeatedly.

[Haiti again]

Q Scott, I just want to come back to where I started, because you seemed to characterize my question as asking if the President's views on marriage being between a man and a woman had changed. That's not what I asked. I was simply stating, talking about the application of his views, when did he cease seeing it as a state issue and begin seeing it as a federal issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, I said that he's always viewed marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I will keep -- I would point back to some of what he said in terms of the -- one, I'm not accepting the premise the way you stated the question -- but point back to what he said in his remarks when it came to the issue of other states having to recognize laws of other states.

Q Also, this would be the first time since the Prohibition era that a constitutional amendment had been sought that would actually restrict rights in America. Though there may be some people in this room who remembers how well the Prohibition amendment went down, does the President really want to be the first President since the Prohibition era to deny people rights?

MR. MCCLELLAN: Again, I think the President addressed this very issue in his remarks when he talked about how we are a free, just and tolerant society, and he talked about the importance of respecting all individuals, but that this is about an enduring institution of national importance.

Q Thank you.

[Rspaight]

There he stands with a pen and a yellow pad
What a handsome lad
That's my boy
NOWMD spells invading Baghdad
But that ain't too bad
That's my boy

You can have your TV and your nightclubs
And you can have your drive in picture show
I'll stay here with my web browser near
I'll turn on the RealVideo
Biding my time and
Watching "The Scotty Show"

Making a National Guard record with no timeclocks
And an old Xerox
That's my boy
George W. Bush says it's thirteen o'clock
Well that's quite a shock!
That's my boy

In four short years
I've gone from riches to rags
And what I did before that I don't know
So let Helen Thomas try to rattle us
I got my own comedy show
Sitting here laughing
Watching "The Scotty Show"

Last question answered then it's off to bed
With a pounding head
That's my boy
Got to have a stiff scotch and a Sudafed
My eyes glow red
That's my boy

What's that you say momma
Come on and keep your feet warm
Well save me a place
I'll be there in a minute or so
I'll think I'll stay right here and
Read one more transcript before I go
Me and whitehouse.gov
Watching "The Scotty Show"
Me and whitehouse.gov
Watching "The Scotty Show"...

Ryan

PS - If these pro-FMA arguments begin to sway your opinion, you can go here to get started:

http://ma2.speaknow.info/orderform.cfm?host_id=AFA

[Grant]

You ever think these judges are really Republicans trying to push the issue by allowing gay marriages, knowing it would shake up enough people to vote for Bushie next November?

[Xenu]

I've never actually seen a Micky-boy press conference. Is he as irritating to listen to as he is to read?

I mean, christ, he isn't even GOOD at being evasive. "Well, actually, blah blah blah."

[lukpac]

Marriage: Mix and Match
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: March 3, 2004
Shakespeare's "Othello" used to be among the hardest plays to stage in America. Although the actors playing Othello were white, they wore dark makeup, so audiences felt "disgust and horror," as Abigail Adams said. She wrote, "My whole soul shuddered whenever I saw the sooty heretic Moor touch the fair Desdemona."

Not until 1942, when Paul Robeson took the role, did a major American performance use a black actor as Othello. Even then, Broadway theaters initially refused to accommodate such a production.

Fortunately, we did not enshrine our "disgust and horror" in the Constitution — but we could have. Long before President Bush's call for a "constitutional amendment protecting marriage," Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed an amendment that he said would uphold the sanctity of marriage.

Mr. Roddenberry's proposed amendment, in December 1912, stated, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . is forever prohibited." He took this action, he said, because some states were permitting marriages that were "abhorrent and repugnant," and he aimed to "exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

"Let this condition go on if you will," Mr. Roddenberry warned. "At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa." (His zoology was off: orangutans come from Asia, not Africa.)

In Mr. Bush's call for action last week, he argued that the drastic step of a constitutional amendment is necessary because "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." Mr. Roddenberry also worried about the risks ahead: "This slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation to a conflict as fatal and as bloody as ever reddened the soil of Virginia."

That early effort to amend the Constitution arose after a black boxer, Jack Johnson, ostentatiously consorted with white women. "A blot on our civilization," the governor of New York fretted.

In the last half-century, there has been a stunning change in racial attitudes. All but nine states banned interracial marriages at one time, and in 1958, a poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites. Yet in 1997, 77 percent approved. (A personal note: my wife is Chinese-American, and I heartily recommend miscegenation.)

Mr. Bush is an indicator of a similar revolution in views — toward homosexuality — but one that is still unfolding. In 1994, Mr. Bush supported a Texas antisodomy law that let the police arrest gays in their own homes. Now the Bushes have gay friends, and Mr. Bush appoints gays to office without worrying that he will turn into a pillar of salt.

Social conservatives like Mr. Bush are right in saying that marriage is "the most fundamental institution in civilization." So we should extend it to America's gay minority — just as marriage was earlier extended from Europe's aristocrats to the masses.

Conservatives can fairly protest that the gay marriage issue should be decided by a political process, not by unelected judges. But there is a political process under way: state legislatures can bar the recognition of gay marriages registered in Sodom-on-the-Charles, Mass., or anywhere else. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically gives states that authority.

Yet the Defense of Marriage Act is itself a reminder of the difficulties of achieving morality through legislation. It was, as Slate noted, written by the thrice-married Representative Bob Barr and signed by the philandering Bill Clinton. It's less a monument to fidelity than to hypocrisy.

If we're serious about constitutional remedies for marital breakdowns, we could adopt an amendment criminalizing adultery. Zamfara, a state in northern Nigeria, has had success in reducing AIDS, prostitution and extramarital affairs by sentencing adulterers to be stoned to death.

Short of that, it seems to me that the best way to preserve the sanctity of American marriage is for us all to spend less time fretting about other people's marriages — and more time improving our own.

[Rspaight]

Yet the Defense of Marriage Act is itself a reminder of the difficulties of achieving morality through legislation. It was, as Slate noted, written by the thrice-married Representative Bob Barr...

Heh. He likes marriage so much he did it three times. Therefore, he's three times as moral as gays, who can't get married at all.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Bolding by me:

BADGER POLL: No on gay marriage

But many support allowing civil unions

By David Callender
April 12, 2004

Support remains strong among Wisconsin residents for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, but there appears to be less support for an amendment that would also ban so-called civil unions, according to the latest Badger Poll.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they favor an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but that support fell to 53 percent when respondents were asked if they would also exclude civil unions.

That distinction could prove critical if, or when, Wisconsin voters are asked to approve the proposed constitutional amendment lawmakers passed last month. The amendment still has to be approved by the Legislature again next year before it would go to voters.

"Clearly, an amendment that focuses on marriage would gain support more easily," said Badger Poll director G. Donald Ferree Jr.

On two related questions, two-thirds of those surveyed said they would oppose a law allowing members of the same sex to marry.

But, by a 50-45 percent margin, those surveyed said they would approve of civil unions "where, without calling it marriage, people of either sex can register partnerships that give them most of the legal advantages that husbands and wives now have."

For many, it's the M word - marriage - that gives them pause.

"I believe men and women were made to be joined together in the institution of marriage, and same-sex couples were not," said Raymond Otto, 64, of Thiensville.

"I would have to say that using the word marriage makes me uncomfortable," he said. "If you ask me whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as a married couple, then I'd have to see what those rights are."

Otto said he opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians in areas such as housing and employment, and he believes same-sex couples should be entitled to joint health insurance coverage. But on issues such as adoption, he said, "I have some concerns."

Critics note that the proposed amendment - which is believed to be among the most restrictive now under consideration in the country - would ban both same-sex marriages and relationships that are "substantially similar" to marriage.

They contend that such language could also ban civil unions and lead to legal prohibitions against the recognition of homosexual relationships for domestic partner benefits.

The amendment's author, state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said he was not surprised by the Badger Poll's findings.

He contends that objections to the breadth of his amendment are overblown, and that the term "substantially similar" merely opens the door for the courts to consider what types of relationships are banned.

As for support for civil unions, Fitzgerald said, "The problem is that term doesn't mean anything to anybody in this state. It's not something people have strong feelings about. If you ask them about same-sex marriage or the defense of marriage, that's different."

Chris Ott, executive director of Action Wisconsin, the state's largest gay-rights organization, said he was encouraged by the degree of support for civil unions.

"Once people understand that this proposed amendment is not just about gay marriage but civil unions," the easier it will be to mobilize opposition, he said.

To some of those surveyed, that opposition seems self evident.

"I don't think anyone should be able to tell anyone else who they can or can't marry," said Karen McCulloch, 47, of Madison. "If they're in love with someone, they're totally entitled to get married."


E-mail: dcallender@madison.com

[Patrick M]

Homosexual Marriage: A Slippery Slope?

David Limbaugh
Tuesday, June 1, 2004

I disagree that society's march toward sanctioning homosexual marriage represents enlightened thinking. I also strongly reject the notion that our movement in this direction is no big deal.

The homosexual lobby casually dismisses that heterosexual marriage has been established for thousands of years, saying human beings have evolved from the bigoted thinking of the past, just like with slavery.

No offense, but the comparisons to slavery and the civil rights movement are off base, cynical and exploitive. There is no legitimate comparison between denying people basic civil rights because of their skin color and the refusal to redefine the institution of marriage to include unions between people of the same sex. But by couching the argument in terms of civil rights, homosexual activists have put traditionalists on the defensive.

Apart from eradicating slavery, have we really "evolved" morally? How can we possibly be improving ourselves morally when we have moved into the nihilistic postmodern age, characterized by its outright rejection of absolute moral standards?

Who are we trying to fool? Instead of becoming more moral, we are just redefining terms and standards to accommodate our addiction to licentiousness and our shameful repudiation of personal responsibility and accountability. If we don't like to live within certain standards we instinctively know are beneficial, healthy and morally sound, fine, we'll just change the standards.

What surprises me is not the cultural pressure to abandon traditional values, but the lame resistance of traditionalists. Apathy is one thing, but rolling over without a fight is quite another.

Part of this is attributable to complacency: Everything is "no big deal" - let's just live and let live. But also involved is a willful ignorance of the inevitable implications of losing the culture war.

More significant than either complacency or ignorance, though, is our acute moral negligence, which is probably born of our cowardice. That is, we are often unwilling to stand up for what we know is right (moral negligence) because we don't have the courage to withstand the ridicule of the politically correct thought police.

How many times have we all declined to state our true opinion on a moral issue not out of a noble desire to be inoffensive or gracious, but because we didn't want to take the heat or wanted to avoid being stigmatized as a homophobe or narrow-minded bigot?

I'm not advocating gratuitous stridency, but shouldn't we have the courage to be honest about our moral beliefs even when they are quite unpopular among the most vocal in our upside-down culture?

Some on the right consider social conservatives an annoying single-issue breed and argue that the redefinition of marriage is nothing to fret over. They pooh pooh the slippery slope argument that if we completely legitimize same-sex marriage it will just be a matter of time before we sanction polygamy, bestiality, incest or pedophilia. Not to worry, they say. We always draw the line somewhere.

Oh? Upon what basis will we draw such lines anymore? With postmodern relativists having prevailed in the struggle to remove absolute moral standards as a foundation for our laws, how will we logically limit further transgressions? What's to transgress?

After all, if the hallowed concept of constitutional privacy is the justification for gay marriage, why shouldn't it be the basis for these other behaviors? I realize that pedophilia and some cases of incest might be different in that one of the parties to the relationship doesn't have the capacity to consent.

That's true, but that can be rationalized away just as easily. Some already glorify the practice of pedophilia. You see, it's not a matter of a slippery slope we fear. It's pure, unadulterated moral freefall.

But speaking of slippery slopes, let's not fall into the slippery slope of non-thinking to the point that we treat social issues as just one cog in the wheel of political conservatism. Our approach to these moral issues - our worldview - is foundational to all other issues.

So those who think that the erosion of traditional marriage is just one little setback in the overall societal struggle are sorely underestimating its substantive significance as well as the rationale upon which it has occurred. Gay marriage is a blow to traditional morality no matter how you cut it. But the wholesale abandonment of moral standards leading us to legitimize it is even more troublesome.

Let's treat everyone with civility and respect, but could we please treat ourselves with a little, too? Or will we continue to devalue ourselves as moral beings?

COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[Xenu]

Relativism: The judging of issues based on their effects, rather than their innate nature. Ahh well.

This guy was just at UofC carping about how "liberals" want to destroy Christianity (implying therefore that there's no such thing as a "Christian" liberal, that liberals are *aggressively* athetistic, etc.)

[lukpac]

Gay marriage is a blow to traditional morality no matter how you cut it.

All that wheezing and he never really explains why gay marriage is inherently "bad".