Hmm, well according to this speech by Bush. This constitution amendent is suppose to be the same as a law passed during the Clinton adminstration. It passed overwhelmingly: The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. It is called the Defense of Marriage Act and Bush said "Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage". And the reason Mr Bush wants to make this a constitution amendent is to protect the law from the courts striking it down in some future date.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
Now, why is this problem and what is the Left crying about it?
Current Events » in reply to re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
The whole thread (101 posts)
- Gay marriage amendment
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- re: The Inconvenient Question, revisited
- OK, I'll bite
- The crux of that argument is polygamy
- First liberals had trouble with what the meaning of "is" is, now they're having trouble with the meaning of marriage.
- more to the point......
- A terrific error
- Huge. Huge. Mistake.
- What is intolerant is redefining marriage over the will of the people
- I've explained this once or twice before...
- What a coincidence!!!
- The terrible price of freedom
- Those Christians again -
- re: Those Christians
- No culture in Human history has allowed for same sex marriage.
- One explanation of the difference.
- re: If you marry someone who's of legal age in one state . . .
- re: Those Christians
- A BIG mistake.
- re: Gay marriage amendment
- re: Flap in California, or Nader's announcement . . . ?
- The Inconvenient Question, revisited
