Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Bush: Pushing same sex hot button. Promotes gay marriage ban as Senate debates amendment today. Good use of time?

| 35 Comments

Senate debate on same sex marriage amendment starts at 1 p.m. Chicago time. It's called the `` Marriage Protection Amendment. ''

President Bush put a federal gay marriage ban on the table when he was running for re-election in 2004. This amendment was rejected by the Senate two years ago and is revived as Bush, with low approval ratings, is trying to rally his conservative base with an eye on the November mid-term elections. Bush makes a statement of support for the ban at 12:45 p.m. Chicago time.

Is this a good use of the Senate time?

9:05 a.m. Meets with the president of the Republic of the Congo. Oval Office, The White House.

10:10 a.m. Meets with Chinese Leadership Program Fellows. EEOB - Room 350, The White House.

11:05 a.m. Meets with the President of Honduras. Oval Office, The White House.

1:45 p.m. Makes a statement on the Marriage Protection Amendment. EEOB - ROOM 450, The White House.


from the White House.........


This morning, President Bush will meet with President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo. The two leaders will discuss implementation of the May 5, 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement, NATO assistance to strengthen the African Union Mission in Sudan and the follow-on U.N. mission, United Nations authorization to promptly transition to a U.N. peacekeeping force, and ways to strengthen democracy and improve the lives of the Congolese people.

President Bush will then meet with Chinese Leadership Program Fellows, followed by a meeting with President Manuel Zelaya Rosales of Honduras, in which the two leaders will discuss the expansion of free trade and economic growth and continuing cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

In the afternoon, the President will make a statement on the Marriage Protection Amendment.

____

35 Comments

President Bush is the most hypocrite president ever. he says gay marriage is wrong but yet killing kids in Iraq is not... hmmmm

This President who was never legally elected is the postor child for the failed dogma of the neo-con
agenda! Those who voted/supported for him should be as ashamed of themselves.

I think that people are being way too unfair to President Bush.

Now, by all accounts, this president of ours has an IQ barely above that of a person with Down syndrome. Considering this handicap, we must not begrudge the collossal imprudence of reviving the same controversy he used to win reelection last year.

He sounds like a broken record, yes. He knows that pushing for an anti-gay ammendment in the constitution is an excercise in futility, yes. He knows that his actions are way transparent and everyone can see he is just trying to divert attention from his ineptitute at the helm, yes.

But, we can't blame him for going ahead with this affront to Americans' common sense. After all, you would not blame a man in a coma for wetting the bed, would you?

It doesn't surprise me that the GOP is pandering to its religious fundamentalist base, but it does surprise me how openly they are doing so.

They clearly don't have the votes but they are still pushing ahead with this DOA anti-gay agenda. Everyone on both sides of the issue can see that it is just another political stunt -- I don't understand why the religious fundamentalists aren't insulted by the GOP's belief that they can be bought-off with such toothless and pointless pandering.

And the rest of the nation should be outraged that the Republican leadership is setting aside the nation's real problems -- Iraq, domestic spying, record deficit, hurricane/disaster prep, etc. -- to engage in this piece of political theater.

That doesn't make a person hypocritical.

Saying gay marriage is wrong and then passing some sort of bill would be hypocritical.

BUSH IS DUMB!!!!!! GAY marriage SHoULD be Legal Its not hurting you What only Straight people shuld be happy?

Gay marriage will bring down our society, and needs to be made illegal, only a moron think this has anything to do with iraq, where since we are fighting al queda and winning we havent been attacked here. AIDS kills more people than Iraq terrorists ever could...hmmmm

It is a state issue. Nowhere in the U.S. consitition is there any language about family law. Additionally, this would be the only federal consitutional amendment that actually restricts freedom. No matter where one stands on the issue of gay marraige, NOBODY should stand for the constitution to be assaulted in this way. Here's hoping this political tactic blows up in his face.

Marriages are religious ceremonies. Any regulation violates the separation of church and state.

What a misuse of taxpayer money. They should have their pay withheld for today. A soaring federal deficit, kids dying in Iraq, energy prices out of control, and they waste time on THIS???

Personally I really hope that Bush bans gay marriage.

Immediately following his ban, I encourage gays to visit Canada and get married here. We can use your tourist dollars, and we really don't care which way you swing.

Lets get back to issues America care about.Like the Veterans Cuts,Troops with Mental Problems in Iraq on Meds,and not taken care of wouned troops after discharge from Military Hospitals.Other issues are not political moves to get out the Republican Base

Marriage a religious ceremony? It is not. It is a contract between two individuals sanctioned by the state. A marriage does not need the endorsement of a religious institution to be valid. But a marriage without the state presiding over it is invalid, no matter how many churches blessed it...

As you can see, religion and marriage have nothing to do with each other. It is simply a contract between two people, and to stipulate that only a man and a woman can enter into such a contract is discriminatory. It is plain and simple and soooooooo easy, all courts in all states in all countries are delivering the only possible outcome: marriage is for all, period. Spain, Canada, Holland, Massachussetts, and pretty soon the rest of the USA... that's the way it should be.

Harriet- your level of ignorance is astonishing. Thanks to this president, tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq and Afganistan- people who are not even affiliated with al queda. It's hard to believe anyone could support the senate spending time on a proposal that would write descrimination into the constitution when we have out-of-control deficits, high energy costs, and that pesky war. There are too many other issues threatening this country that the senate should spend time on.

Ovviously there are morepressing issues at stake here. As a gay man ina relationship for many years I would hope that this amendment has no possibility of passing. I would hope that this introduciton to restricting everyone's freedom would never conclude in a manner that could harm others.

An in response to the comment about AIDS above, please educate yourself.

Ask questions. No one wants to be seen as the village idiot, but lately it seems to be an airborn virus.

Let the churches take over all aspects of marriage. They can marry (or refuse to marry) anyone they want. Of course that means all the legal/civil parts of the partnership would be void--no spousal rights to hospital visitation, no mandatory child support, no instant inheritance, etc.

what the heck are we fooling around with wedding rings and walls for when we really need to cover everyone for health care ...cancer patients are paying exhorbitant amounts for medications and thats with insurance..hundreds of dollars for antibiotics for a sick child...pain medication for those who need it being governed by concerns for those who abuse it...im going to vote for whoever starts to deal with what we need now....not what they Fear we Might deal within the future....WHEN WILL NEWS PEOPLE STOP CHASING THE NONSENSE THE POLITICIANS USE AS A SMOKE SCREEN AND HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BASIC NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITU

What's ironic is all the liberals complaining about wasting time and tax payers money on such a debate. Pretty self defeating argument considering the love of big government and big spending from the left.

Liberals want to question those who voted for Bush, and don't question why liberals did not win. That is funny.

It is no coinsidence that the Republicans chose the 25th anniversary of the start of the HIV/AIDS crisis to propell their hate-filled anti-gay legislation. More pandering to the ignorant masses who would think that gay marriage could worsen the HIV/AIDS crisis. Have they no shame?? Plus, I love how the man that swore to uphold the Constitution when he took office now publicly denounces separation of powers by stating that gay marriage is something Americans do not want handled by the courts. The conservatives don't want the courts deciding this issue because they know there is no valid legal reason to prohibit gay marriage. I am ashamed to be an American under this administration.

The issue is about money and corporate influence like everything else the republicans stand for. This is a lobby by the insurance companies and corporate america to keep homosexuals from marrying because of the money they would lose in benefit coverage. Anyone who works for a living knows that the second largest employee expense is benefits. Companies look to decrease expenses any and everyway they can. (i.e. Illegal immigrants working for pennies) Corporate america is driving that bus as well!

If you're an advocate of traditional morals and family values, let's be consistent.

--If you care about rearing children, REQUIRE all heterosexual married couples receiving federal tax benefits to have (or adopt) children. No children? Then, sorry, no $500,000 tax exemption on selling your home.

--Divorce should not be granted to ANY heterosexual couple with children under the age of 18. Sorry to be severe, but it's American children at stake here.

--Prosecute everyone, including heterosexuals for oral or anal sex. Institute monthly lie-detector tests to prosecute sexual deviants. In addition, prosecute heterosexuals who are not using their God-given talents to procreate.

If we Americans work to be more consistent, we can really show the Saudis a thing or two about genuine moral values!

Onward America!


Come to Canada. They allow gays to marry here and it is not going to change. It is law now and even if another vote occurs in parliament it won't go anywhere. We are free to marry here and are treated equally in the eyes of the law.

I guess as long as the Republicans rule the hill this won't change. Time to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

jo

wow its amazing with presidents bushes low approval rating he can magically bring out the gay card.

Not only is this debate a waste of our elected Represenatives time - as you can see above, it is a waste of our time.

Come on Lynn - engage all these folks in something that matters.
=========================
Reply from Lynn Sweet. I'm game. What do you suggest?

After reading all the liberal posts here, I have no doubt the Republican's will prevail in '06, and again in '08. Do the Democrats really pin all their hopes on Hillary? You have no hope of gaining the senate, at best you'll get a narrow margin in the House. I've never seen such a pathetic mess as the current state of the Democratic party. Oh, and that whole "culture of corruption" thing you had going? Forget it with McKinney's assault of an officer, Kennedy's drunken accident and now Jefferson's videotaped acceptance of a $100,000.00 bribe. Priceless!

A good use of time I would be inclined to say no. But what have they done for us lately. No real immagration reform, not holding the Employers responsible.

Lets think about this for a moment, shall we? Well, you can't place the 10 commandments in front of a federal building... hmmm, okay, and we have to keep our moral values in check and keep gays from marriage. All I have to say is, "Quit hiding behind religion when it serves you, just to ignore it when you don't have use of it!" I have found two related articles that go a bit more in depth on the subject. I hope you all find these usefull.

yes i have always wondered why all these people are so against gay marriages.i am gay and proud of it and so is my family.and i have quite a few friends that are married (straight friends) that are married to someone other than an american(my friends are american)thats all fine with me as long as they are happy.but people say god is against gay people i thought thats why we had all these different races.if he had wanted us all to be together we would all be the same.so people really need to think about all of this god is watching them judging us (HAPPY)gay people.and our relationships seem to last longer than the straight ones hummm wonder why ????????

Suggest Dems leave DC for the duration of the Republican Gay Bashing. Perhaps the time might better be spent visiting Iraq, Gulf Coast, US Auto industry, then returning with ideas on subjects that matter.

Most states ban same sex marriages and yet the divorce rate is sky high.

So who is damaging the institution of marriage; the homosexuals or the heterosexuals?

Why don’t those of you who support this waste of time admit it to yourself you don’t really care about marriage you are just prejudiced, for whatever reason, against homosexuals and then consider why you are. It could be you are frightened by the possibility that you may harbor some of these “tendencies “ within yourself.

Oh and Dan Terpstra please look at what party has controlled the presidency when the greatest increases in government spending have occurred, esp. the defense (war) budget.

And to the others, give up blaming Kennedy and Clinton etc. to cover your indiscretions. It is wrong when Democrats and Republicans are corrupt.

Marriage is "traditionally" a heterosexual institution? This is, morally, the weakest argument. Slavery was also a "traditional" institution, based on traditions that went back to the beginning of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. By the 19th century humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize TRUTH -- there are no moral grounds on which to support the "tradition" of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction? Besides, as one poster has brought to the table already, not one american is forced (by anyone other than family) to a "Church" wedding. You only need a State contract to enter into marriage!

"3)But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3 (King James Version)

To the person that compared
the issue of Gay marriage to the War situation in Iraq: grow up.
People dying in ANY war is a very sad reality. For you to say Bush is hypocritical by linking the "killing of and it has nothing to do with the "killing of kids in Iraq"---which by the way is being done primarily by IRAQI sects. My husband is retired Air Force, and I have a child in the military ---BOTH have put themselves in harms way so others can have the freedom many American's here take for granted. Your comparison is an insult to all who have and still are serving this Nation in the military. You want to blast Bush's stand on the gay issue then focus on the gay issue.

The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights... or so I was lead to believe by let say, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and even the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. What gives America?

how could gay marriage bring down our society? remember that God is only an imaginary leader and wont exact a fearful vengence of wrath. The destruction of Sodom stories are at best the work of junkie crackpots at worst the misinterpretation of lieing fools. yes there were junkies back then as well. finally its impossible to defend the slaughter (murder) of people by pointing at something else unrelated. grow up and save your freedom.

For those who need a refresher on the Bible. "Some groups cite Genesis 19, a passage that condemns homosexual rape, as proof that God hates all homosexual behavior. Yet they would never quote a verse that condemns heterosexual rape and state that it applies to all heterosexual activity."

"Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result.

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen if the interpretation by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) was used. Translators might render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean.

By reading various translations of the Bible, generations of Christians have been conditioned to expect this verse to condemn all homosexual behavior -- or at least all male same-sex activity. They expect that it will be morally condemned as "an abomination" or at least as a "detestable" act. But this new translation does not prohibit male to male sexual behavior; it only limits where the act can be performed. And it does not say that this conduct, if done on a woman's bed, is to be morally condemned. It only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming too close to a dead body, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo. The readers would assume that the translation is defective and that the translators were distorting the original meaning of the passage in order to be politically correct and not offend gays and lesbians. The readers would be disinclined to buy the Bible. Thus, a truly accurate Bible would be a financial failure, and would never see the light of day.

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are mistranslated in many English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

1) Qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

2) To'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is to'ebah. A Jew eating with an Egyptian was to'ebah. A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be to'ebah."

As a gay man, I guess the God Almighty I believe in (sarcasm intended) just didn't understand? It might be that he never intended for everyone to love, well, even their enemy. Or that his Son, our Savior, never meant that we should really turn the other cheek. Maybe he didn't even mean it when he said that we shouldn't judge people? Get real America!!! God loves EVERYONE!!!

"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3 (King James Version)

*(Quotes: Copyright © 1996 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance)*

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on June 5, 2006 6:09 AM.

Sweet Column: 11th CD Dem Pavich on being a CIA officer. was the previous entry in this blog.

Bush: On border patrol again at Laredo. Another immigration push in New Mexico. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.