- Hillary Clinton aide admits soliciting disgraced D.C. fundraiser; says actions were legal
- Joel Osteen church victimized in $600K theft
- Obama goes shopping at Gap as minimum-wage thanks
- N.J. woman charged after client dies from black-market butt injections
- CIA chief Brennan ‘determined’ to speak out more this year
- Reset? What reset? U.S.-Russia ties at worst since Cold War
- 9/11 terror plotter released in Syrian prisoner swap
- D.C. elections board gives green light to marijuana legalization initiative
- Elephants can tell difference between human languages: study
- Libyan prime minister ousted by parliament
White House waits on marriage issue
The White House will not weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a heterosexual union until the Massachusetts legislature and the San Francisco courts deal with the matter first, according to prominent homosexual leaders.
The leaders, including top Republican homosexual rights advocates who speak often with senior Bush administration officials, also said the White House likely will remain silent until Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry stops flip-flopping on the contentious issue.
“The reasonable political minds at the White House have decided that there’s no reason to say anything right now,” said Mark Mead, political director for Log Cabin Republicans, a national homosexual group.
Noting that senior administration officials have expressed plans to take a wait-and-see stance on how Massachusetts and San Francisco settle the homosexual “marriage” question, Mr. Mead said: “They want to let this sort out.”
In addition, Bush officials are watching Mr. Kerry on the issue. “The White House is smart to let John Kerry define his position because it changes hourly,” he said.
Another prominent homosexual advocate said he has had direct discussions with White House officials, who have told him that there has been no change in the president’s official position: Mr. Bush, as he said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, supports a constitutional amendment if Americans decide to take that path.
“From what I’ve heard, the White House is watching the Massachusetts legislature and the San Francisco courts to see what happens,” the advocate said on the condition of anonymity. “They’ve told me not to expect any action from the administration until those situations move forward.”
More than 2,300 homosexual couples have been issued “marriage” licenses in San Francisco since the city began to wed same-sex couples last week. A group opposed to the weddings sued, but a judge yesterday delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block the “marriages.”
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts legislature late last week delayed for a month a decision on whether to amend the state’s constitution to ban homosexual “marriage.” Supporters of the homosexual “marriage” amendment failed to get a majority to pass any of the four proposed measures, so lawmakers decided to take up the issue again on March 11.
On Capitol Hill, an amendment sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican and co-sponsored by 103 other Republicans and eight Democrats, says: ” Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal laws, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
But even in Congress the matter is far from the front burner. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said last week that if Massachusetts remains deadlocked and the state begins to issue licenses to same-sex couples in mid-May, “the wildfire will truly begin.” That political firestorm is three months away.
But while the policies of homosexual “marriage” remain off in the distance, the politics are front and center. Homosexual groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans are withholding their endorsement of Mr. Bush pending his decision on homosexual “marriage.”
Meanwhile Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has also gotten into hot water over the issue. Last week, he said he would support an amendment to the Constitution banning “marriage,” despite his opposition to a similar effort two years ago and his current opposition to a federal marriage amendment. An aide later said the senator meant the Massachusetts — not the U.S. — Constitution.
By David Keene
Conference showed that the values Reagan cherished still endure
- House Democrats trying to force unemployment insurance vote
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Joel Osteen church victimized in $600K theft
- Hillary Clinton campaign received funds from Jeffrey Thompson
- Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS after months of talks
- FCC targets black conservative in TV station fight
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Redskins keeping Santana Moss, agree to terms with two others
- 80 people publicly executed across North Korea for films, Bibles
- Atheists sue to remove 'Ground Zero Cross' from 9/11 museum
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again