Bush et les homosexuels

[pelon]

Bush veut plaire à tout ce que le pays compte de réactionnaires. Il tient à redéfinir la législation pour empêcher les mariages gays car, n'est ce pas, il croit à la "sanctity of the marriage". Après la campagne sur les armes de destructions massives qui tourne en eau de boudin, il faut prendre des sujets plus "sûrs" et préparer la future campagne.
Pour ceux qui ne lisent pas l'anglais, l'article est un peu long à traduire. Disons quand même que Bush pardonne aux homosexuels car nous sommes tous des pècheurs. Les homos en question apprécieront cette tolérance.


CITATION
July 30, 2003
Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.
By DAVID STOUT


ASHINGTON, July 30 — President Bush said today that federal government lawyers are working on legislation that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," Mr. Bush said at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

The president's comments, coming only a few weeks after the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law banning sodomy and holding, in effect, that whatever consenting adults do in private is their own business, seemed likely to reignite issues that have deep social and political implications.

Mr. Bush was responding to a question premised on the assumption that many of his political supporters believe "that homosexuality is immoral" and has been given too much cultural acceptance.

"As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?" a reporter asked the president.

"Yeah, I am mindful that we're all sinners," Mr. Bush replied. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.

"On the other hand," Mr. Bush continued, "that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

The president touched upon several other domestic issues, including Medicare and tax cuts, in his impromptu news session today. He urged the House and Senate to resolve their differences on prescription drug coverage under Medicare and get him a bill soon. And he reiterated his position that tax cuts will speed the turnaround of the economy.

Mr. Bush did not go into detail on what kind of marriage-defining measures are being considered, which agencies the lawyers are from and what timetable they are working under, if any.

Nor was it clear if new measures would conflict with or be meant to supersede the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act banning federal recognition of same-sex partnerships. That law was sponsored by Republicans and signed by President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Bush's declaration that marriage is properly defined as a union between a man and a woman was not new in itself. His former spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reiterated that very point on July 1, when the White House declined to endorse the idea of a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage.

But Mr. Fleischer declined at that time to say whether the president supported a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as proposed by Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader.

Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who angered many gays earlier this year with his remarks linking homosexuality to polygamy and incest, wrote to constituents last year to express support for what has been dubbed the Federal Marriage Amendment by its backers. Mr. Santorum is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership.

The Supreme Court decision in the Texas case, coupled with a recent decision in Canada to permit gay marriage, suggests that the debate will not go away. Courts in several states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey, are expected to rule on cases involving same-sex unions. Three years ago, Vermont became the first state to enact a law allowing same-sex civil unions.

Issues involving gay rights have been troublesome for the Republican Party. Many conservative Republicans, whose support President Bush counts on, reject any suggestion that same-sex unions should be treated like marriages between men and women.

On the other hand, some Republican strategists have tried in recent years to portray their party as "a big tent," eager and willing to embrace people of different philosophies.

And the Log Cabin Republicans, a political advocacy group of gay men and lesbians, has attracted enough support to have been invited to policy briefings at the White House, despite the considerable consternation of more conservative Republicans.

Democrats have also been divided, ideologically and semantically, on the issue of "gay marriage," and even whether same-sex unions should be called that, as illustrated at a recent candidates' forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a group advocating gay rights.

Only two Democratic presidential candidates, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, supported gay marriage unambiguously at the forum in Washington.

Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida said through spokesmen that they opposed gay marriage but supported extending health and other benefits to the domestic partners of gays.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1966, declared himself against gay marriage but in favor of "civil unions" that would allow gays and their partners tax benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation and other rights accorded married people.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, took a similar view, as did Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont three years ago signed the nation's first law allowing same-sex civil unions in a state. Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri also declared himself in the "civil unions" camp.
[/quote]

[pelon]

CITATION (Byrrh @ jeudi 31 juillet 2003, 00:14)Merci bien Pelon, mais pour les nazes comme moi qui sont nuls en langues étrangères, voici une dépêche en français qui reprend la même info :

CITATION mercredi 30 juillet 2003, 18h49

George W. Bush refuse de reconnaître le mariage homosexuel

WASHINGTON (AP) - Le président américain George W. Bush a exclu mercredi de reconnaître le mariage homosexuel en déclarant que des juristes du gouvernement travaillaient sur une nouvelle loi qui définira le mariage comme l'union entre un homme et une femme.

"Je crois que le mariage a lieu entre un homme et une femme et je crois que nous devons le légiférer d'une manière ou d'une autre", a déclaré le président américain lors d'une conférence de presse dans la Roseraie de la Maison Blanche. "Nous avons des juristes qui cherchent la meilleure façon de le faire".

Le président Bush a cependant souhaité que les Etats-Unis restent un "pays accueillant" sans se polariser sur la question de l'homosexualité. "Je n'oublie pas que nous sommes tous des pécheurs. Je mets en garde celui qui voit la paille dans l'oeil du voisin, mais pas la poutre dans le sien", a-t-il dit en ajoutant: "Je pense qu'il est important pour notre société de respecter chaque individu et d'accueillir ceux qui ont bon coeur".

Mais "d'un autre côté, cela ne veut pas dire que quelqu'un comme moi a besoin de parvenir à un compromis sur la question du mariage", a-t-il souligné.

George W. Bush s'oppose depuis longtemps au mariage homosexuel, mais il avait déclaré au début du mois qu'une interdiction constitutionnelle du mariage gay proposée à la Chambre des représentants ne serait pas nécessaire. Et ce, malgré une décision de la Cour suprême qui, selon certains conservateurs, ouvrirait la porte à légalisation des unions de personnes de même sexe.

La plus haute juridiction américaine a en effet cassé une loi du Texas qualifiant les relations sexuelles homosexuelles de crime, rejetant une décision précédente permettant aux Etats de punir des personnes homosexuelles pour avoir eu des relations sexuelles.

La sénatrice républicaine Marilyn Musgrave a proposé d'inscrire l'interdiction du mariage homosexuel dans la Constitution américaine. Cet amendement proposé le 21 mai a été présenté le 25 juin de la commission judiciaire de la Chambre des représentants. Pour être ajouté à la Constitution, l'amendement doit être approuvé par les deux-tiers de la Chambre des représentants et du Sénat, puis ratifié par les trois quarts des Etats américains. AP
[/quote][/quote]
Merci Byhrr. Le naze, c'est moi qui vais chercher l'info en anglais quand l'essentiel est dans une dépèche en français. :emb:

[pelon]

CITATION (rojo @ jeudi 31 juillet 2003, 00:28)Non, c'est Pelon qui fait le con pour amuser les enfants[/quote]
ça faisait longtemps. Et la bonne soeur à l'air méchant et vicieux qui me donnait des cauchemars, qu'est-elle devenue ? :hinhin:

[magdalene]

CITATION (pelon @ jeudi 31 juillet 2003, 00:32)CITATION (rojo @ jeudi 31 juillet 2003, 00:28)Non, c'est Pelon qui fait le con pour amuser les enfants[/quote]
ça faisait longtemps. Et la bonne soeur à l'air méchant et vicieux qui me donnait des cauchemars, qu'est-elle devenue ?

[pelon]

CITATION (magdalene @ jeudi 31 juillet 2003, 00:48)
[/quote]
Elle respire la bonté.