Bigot

The Constitution, the cornerstone law that has supported the American project for over 200 years and serves as the blueprint for our way of life guarantees equal rights and protections under the law.  Denying gay people the opportunity to marry contradicts this essential freedom and entitlement, and as such, is Unamerican to the core.  We as Americans are guided and ruled by laws in the public sphere, not by that roll of toiletpaper known as the Bible.  Anyone who does not recognize and abide by this actuality should go somewhere else.  And seeing how heterosexuals in this country have made a mockery of the supposedly "sacred" institution of marriage, it's quite a stretch to suggest that extending the franchise to homosexuals is going to compromise it any more than it's already suffered.  So, Chimp Boy, once again, is clumsily tampling around where he doesn't belong.  That turd should drop dead already and cut us all a break.

It's about time to end Judicial tyranny in the US.

ugggh! Fuck people who think this way

Good

Band gay marriage. Save america from rewarding a bad, dangerouse, sick, nasty, disease spreading, anti family behavior. Go back in the closet where you belong.

I support the government on this issue. the bible says man and wife. i really could care less what you do behind closed doors. Keep the affection behind closed doors. children have so much to deal with growing up this is just all the more to have to explain. if you have children and you want them to see that, its your business. i have great friends that are gay, but out of respecet when they are at my home they respect my wishes!! and in there mind , with respect and in there hearts they feel that they are married, i feel that if you are true to one another a piece of paper should it mean so much.? its all in the mind. this is just one more thing to complain about and to get your attention .

I don't feel the goverment has the right to tell you who to love or marry. I'm sure gay people don't choose to be gay. The lifestyle is too difficult. You have to deal with society's wrath as well as bible scripture. Then there is discrimination and the rejection of family. Then you have the nut cases who kill people simply because they are gay. Why would a person "choose to be gay"? I'm so tired of hearing stupid remarks such as "what's next--eight year olds, animals? My answer to those comments is "marriage between two consenting adults". Some things should not be left to popular vote or the majority. As a black person, I'd probably be a slave today if it were left to popular vote--I suspect some people on this site would welcome that. Anway, two gay people marrying has noting to do with my life nor does it impact my life in any way. There are more serious issues facing America besides gay marriage. How about a constitutional amendment banning outsourcing security of our harbors and ports to foreign countries? One exploded dirty bomb in each seaport and we won't have to deal with gay marriage or anything else. Americans are soooo stupid!

The thing that is irrefragable about Gay Marriage is that there is an overwhelming majority of people who are against it! Majority rules!

Narrow minded, immature people will use any excuse to justify their discomfort with same sex couples. Arguments ranging from keeping the birth rate up (I'm straight, and if two guys/girls can have their loving relationship celebrated by society isn't going to make me gay!!) to religious justtification (The Bible says it's wrong. Well about a paragraph before that it says we should stone women and neighbours who sow mixed crops...the Old Testament isn't a book of laws, if it were, it would be worse than Iran) can all be countered with rational debate. As for "protecting the sanctity of marriage"...how come Britney Spears can get drunkenly married in a shotgun wedding, and then divorce two days later while two women or men who love each other deeply and have been together for twenty years have less rights? Also frequently cited is the belief that marrying someone of the same sex is equal to marrying an animal or child. To suggest that gay people lack morals or share the same values as people who commit bestiality or paedophilia is INCREDIBLY offensive, childish and shows an absolutley mind-numbing amount of stupidity. (as for marrying children, ever heard of child brides? Are they legal in Canada? Are they in Europe? Nope! They are in countries that actually PERSECUTE HOMOSEXUALS (India, Pakistan, Arab countries)) EVERY SINGLE argument I have ever heard against gay marriage lacks thought out reasoning, so in reality they are just smokescreens to hide the fact the person is uncomfortable with sexuality. The President should show supreme ability to show reason and act in a just, fair and impartial manner. Banning gay marriage does NOT reflect that. Love isn't as discriminatory as our laws.

Not only is this wrong, it's way off what needs to be addressed. How about a constitutional ban on corporations using the US military to bomb innocent people, including children, so they can get to the resources the so desire? How about a constitutional ban on lobbyist using money to bribe elected officials? How about a ban on Pat Roberston receiving tax money? Using gay marriage as a great scare tactic only diverts attention to more pressing issues. How about a ban on christians who use pseudo science to make arguments that only profit the companies they own? How about a ban on heterosexual having more kids as the population increases at three additional people per second!!! Gay marriage is just people seeking to make contract between themselves. This is not a congressional issue. The war killing thousands of innocent people is. The climate change is. The population out of control is.

OneGodOneFaith said, "If gay marriage is right, what's wrong?" Well you don't need to be a secular humanist to figure it out. Things are wrong that hurt people. Sorry, but allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't hurt the people who want to do it. It doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage. It doesn't hurt society. It doesn't hurt anyone. The minute we depart from a logical, secular approach to polity is the moment anything is possible - slavery can be justified by a number of religions as can the subjugation of women and the stoning to death of children who do not respect their parents. What is the problem with having a government that gives people as much freedom as possible until the freedom infringes on the rights of someone else? THAT is what the framers intended.

Dubbya's way of diverting your attention from his fumbles over the past several years. Anything to get Americans to stop thinking about Iraq for a while. Gays getting married, or having civil unions is not a threat to anyone. People in this country need to mind their own affairs and stop concerning themselves with everybody else's business. With nearly 50% of American marriages ending in divorce, the sanctity of marriage is a pipedream for many anyhow. Although Rush Limbaugh and Liz Taylor might tell you otherwise. They just can't seem to get married and divorced enough!

A complete farce. This was just the Republicans framing the issue to win the election in 2004. Funny, you don't hear about it now, do you?

This is such a non-issue. Gays haven't been rioting in the streets for their right to get married. I'm not saying that many gays wouldn't like to marry their partners, but I think they're more concerned about getting certain legal rights. I'm not saying there aren't some gays who want to marry, but the issue of gay marriage wasn't an issue until George W. Bush made it an issue. He made a big to-do to enhance his credibility with the evangelicals and to divert attention from the disastrous Iraq war and the huge deficit caused by his generous tax cuts for the rich.

This is a waste of time. Bush should stop trying to legislate morality. He needs to bring our troops home (safe and sound).

What is the argument? That gay men have a right to marry each other? Can a man marry an 8 year old girl(wake up, sitcommwriter, he'll be overjoyed)? How about his 8 year old daughter? Oh, that's wrong? Says who? What about his dog? His sheep? His llama (sorry, ralph)? What about the gay guy marrying two guys? Or three? What if they're 1st cousins? Oh, THOSE legal constraints are alright. But two gay guys, you think we should change the law of how many hundreds of years (the Common Law) to accommodate them? Why? And if you want the law changed, there is a way to do it. Initiate a bill in congress, have it pass muster in the voting process, go to the other house . . .oh? You don't want to change the law that way. Too cumbersome, it'll take too long? Get a judge to just rule in your favor. Get some dim bulb mayor to just perform the marriages illegally, even though he took an oath to uphold the laws that the people had already voted on. He knows better. What if the judge thought it would be alright to kill all Episcopalians in the land? You go to him, win your case. Let the Episcopalians run and hide. No. The process is in place to prevent irresponsible laws from being passed. Don't circumvent it, follow the system. I got news for ya, the constitutional amendment wouldn't pass. 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of all the states? What are you crazy? What was the voting again in the 11 states voting on it as a referendum? Oh, it got voted down . . . 11 times? Oregon was one of them?

Now we've got OneGod One Faith on the case...'and by what right do you have to tell me anything is wrong'...do I sense hypocrisy here? Enough already!

What is the world coming to? Marriage is for a MAN and WOMEN. Whats next I'm in love with my dog, sister, mother, daughter so can I marry them. Morally unright but it won't pass because theres to many uneducated stupid Liberals out there. A majority of this world is stupid

Absolutely foolish and a waste of effort for conservatives to pursue this, but it is fun to watch them try. How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage? To those who insist it would devalue the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, I would say their marriages must be on pretty shaky ground to begin with. This would in no way affect my marriage. Bush is pulling yet another cheap political stunt, which is the only way he knows how to operate. He has no real policy, so he diverts public attention from that fact.

A decision that affects a very tiny minority of people any way you look at it, this is likely just a big smelly red herring cast nervously into the political arena to distract people from such issues as the Iraq war and the economy which Bush isn't so hot on. The worst thing is, he has absoloutely nothing to lose! No-one was really expecting advocates of gay marriage to vote republican anyway and now he has polarized the country on an issue where the majority are likely to support him. I don't see a wannabe moral crusader here, I see a savvy politician.

The line was drawn a long time ago that marriage was between a man and a woman. It is certainly what was intended to keep repopulating the planet. I don't pretend to even understand how homosexuals feel and how they deal with, for want of a better term, their way of life. That said I can sympathize with the situation but that does not make it right nor acceptable to allow homosexuals to invade the sanctity of marriage. You have to draw the line some where, if not here then where?

**Ack - I can't resist. Any time you preface your supporting argument with Go to 1776 History... your opinion may be... uhhh... slightly dated. ** Original comment: Sadly for GWB, his decision to try and wedge federal regulation into a consenting relationship between two adults will not age well. Does anyone really have any doubt that 20 years from now, equality under the law for gays and heteros will be a moot point? I know that an election is coming, and I know that slightly more Americans are against gay marriage than are for it. That doesn't make such a dated and short-sighted position any easier to swallow. There are plenty of threats to the institution of marriage out there - equality for gays under the law just isn't one of them.

I am a bisexual. I have been a bisexual all my life. Before you anti-lesbian/gay advocates tell me to get back in the closet, Let me tell you something. For all the 18 years of my life, I have been afraid because of people like George W. Bush frowning upon me and trying to ruin me. For years, I have put up with all these so-called Christians calling me names. Well, I , for one, have had it! I am a law-abiding citizen of this country and I deserve the same rights as any other person! I may be bisexual, but I'm a person, dammit! I have feelings, I have a heart, I have a home! I'm not a bad person despite what the religious right wants to say! I'm a decent and productive person of America! So why should I be denied rights? I never killed or hurt anyone. I never did drugs. I've never been a prostitute. If Britney Spears can get a meaningless marridge, Why can't I have a meaningful one? See.......That's what I mean. I am bisexual. I am a law-abiding citizen. And I should be able to marry whom I please.

Since when has the constitution been used as a tool to take rights AWAY from Americans? Once before, with the 18th amendment (prohibition), which was repealed by the 21st amendment. Let's not make the same mistake again. The constitution should only be used to GRANT rights.

aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, okay I may be roman catholic, I may happen to like being strait, I may even think that gay people should come up with a term different from marriage to define the status of their unions... but that is just wrong. Ignor the fact that I can't stand Bush, even if Trudeau had made an effort to ban gay marriage I'd still be against it. This man and his government are so full of predjudice(sp?) and discrimination that it actually infuriates me! It is not his place to be so judgemental towards gay people, or any other people that aren't hurting anyone but live unconventional lifestyles.

Denying certain citizens basic rights is unconstitutional. It will lead to hate and intolerance, and it is the racism part of the new American fascism.

When activist judges and officials are willing to break the law, this is the type of action that is necessary.

It's getting dumber and dumber in the Bush White House. I have (some) Conservative friends who hate Gays that would rather eat s#@$ than have ANY Constitutional amendment that restricts any type of freedom. Most people I meet on the street think that the states should handle this issue. A Constitutional Amendment? You can't get the House and the Senate to agree on the color of snow let alone get the votes necessary for this. A cheap election-year stunt. Hey Bush fans, the clock is winding down. . .

Like most reviewers here, I believe that Bush endorsing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is largely a red herring. It's an election year and the culture wars are once again at front and center. Politically, Bush is using the issue to rally his Christian Evangelical base. I don't believe that the votes are there in the Congress to allow this to go into a constitutional convention; it isn't going to happen and Bush knows it. He also knows that it's these hot button issues that rally the base; it's better for him not to hark too much on his economic and foreign policy record. Honestly, does gay marriage really affect anyone but the gays themselves? Beware; if this does pass and is added on to the constitution, the law of unintended consequences will come into play. The 14th Amendment will be severely weakened by the addition of a gay marriage amendment; specifically the due process and equal protection clause. The government will be in more of a position to interfere in our personal lives in ways having nothing to do with gay marriage. That's how the law works; the constitution is an interlinked system of guaranteed rights. The protection of our civil liberties is imperative; the government may very well someday use this as a precedent to restrict peoples civil liberties. It's not as far fetched as some may claim. Christian conservatives have to be careful where they tread. Using expanded governmental powers to advance their social agenda will backfire on them. As Gerald Ford said: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away. Their right to practice their beliefs will be hampered by the same arm of big government that they're using to promulgate their beliefs. Bottom line; the constitution is no place to be defining what marriage is. Luckily the Founders established controls to make sure that the passions of the people don't dictate what constitutional amendments are added on. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996 allowing the states to determine whether they will permit civil unions. It is best decided at this level; given the constitutional issues that will come up with his being added on to the constitution, I don't believe that this should be added on to the constitution.

Considering how gay people are citizens of this country as well, of course this is going to be an issue. Not to mention that most of them pay taxes just as much as the average straight person. This proposed amendment is totally unconsitutional and shows you just how dangerous he can be sometimes. Of course he is being influenced by many biased, hypocritical people, so it is NO surprise at all...

I'm glad he supports it, I just don't like the fact that it takes a Constitutional amendment in this country to stop something so ignorant. It's a shame that this has to even be an issue.

A political red-herring with the aim of diverting attention from other flash-point issues such as Iraq, the economy and the deficit. It is intended to cement support from those to whom this is a deciding issue, while moving opponents away from areas where the presidential record may be vulnerable. I think this is more of the cynical, cunning, political manipulation that Bush is very good at.

It is not the job of the state to sanctify marriage. Marriage itself is a religious institution, not a political one. The biggest problem that I have with this is that it is obviously an attempt to put cultural issues at the forefront of this year's presidential campaign. The constitution was not designed to sanctify religious institutions. Furthermore, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, already addresses this issue by allowing state legislatures to establish civil unions while protecting marriage as a religious institution. A constitutional amendment is not necessary, as the proper way to handle this matter would be to enforce the laws already in existance. Furthermore, it also troubles me that in the 2000 campaign George W. Bush stated that under no circumstances would he support a constitutional amendment like the one he is endorsing now.

A blantant last-ditch political attempt to save his presidency from the mediocre path it has inevitably taken. The dogma that exists needs to be extinguished. Equal protection under the law was established by the 14th Amendment. At one time, segregation was legal and enforced, but restrictions on the rights of citizens should never be accepted.

It is inappropriate to use the US Constitution to define the sanctity of anything. What is or is not sacred should be the province of religious bodies. And Magellan is right... equality under the law for ALL Americans is a historical imperitive. Years from now this issue will be a fossil. Even the most steadfast conservatives (like Pat Buchanan) call this proposed amendment a red herring and a bogus amendment.

Forced into action because liberal/activist judges in Mass decided to subvert the legislative process and democracy. Now the states have a chance to decide this one in a traditional Federalist solution. Won't pass but it has forced Kerry and Edwards to basically come up with the same position of Bush and Clinton.