Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Bush in 2004 (an election year) pushed for the amendment.
Bush in 2005 did nothing (at least I don't recall a single story where he was actively pushing for it, show me one where he was, ACTIVELY).




2005, 2003 and 2002

    Early in January of 2005, Bush told the Washington Post that although he still supported the amendment, he would not lobby heavily for the passage because he believed that until a federal court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, there would not be enough votes for passage.

    On January 25, 2005, according to the New York Times, Bush told a privately invited group of African-American community and religious leaders that he remained committed to amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

    Over the course of the next two days, it was revealed by the Washington Post and USA Today that the Bush Administration had paid columnists to promote its views on marriage. The Department of Health and Human Services paid Maggie Gallagher $21,500, and Mike McManus $49,000, to write syndicated news columns endorsing the FMA.

    Additionally, Gallagher also received $20,000 in 2002 and 2003 to write a report on government initiatives to strengthen marriage. McManus leads a group called Marriage Savers that works with other organizations to promote marriage as defined between a man and a woman.


In regards to your points about the Declaration of Independence, regardless of who wrote it, it is not U.S. law. It was passed in 1776, years before the United States was formed. Judges interpret laws, not declarations. It is completely without precedential or legal authority.

Your point on the Ninth Amendment is more valid. And, in fact, that would be a potential basis for a judge to rule in favor of gay marriage. Which, of course, is a valid reason for an opponent of gay marriage to want a subsequent amendment to prevent it.

You may or may not have a point about whether we should allow gay marriage. I think there are legitimate arguments for why we should, in fact, legalize it through a legislative process. However, to have those arguments requires our leaders, including Bush, to broach the topic.

So why are you opposed to the topic being brought up?