> Bush never banned same-sex marriages.
He wants to, though, and with a majority-conservative legislature and soon-to-be-all-conservative Supreme Court, he likely thinks he can.
> There is no ban on same-sex marriages at the state level, and even if
> there were, no President could have been responsible for it.
Close that newsmax.com window and start reading the real news. Dozens of states have enacted same-sex marriage bans, many as a result of the 2004 elections.
> The same-sex marriage ban is at the federal level under the
> Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and
> signed by Bill Clinton,
The DoMA does not ban same-sex marriage. It simply delegates the responsibility of "defining" marriage from the federal government to the individual states. If Utah wanted to define marriage as between one man and as many women as possible, they could, but other states would not be required to recognize Utah's polygamous marriages.
> who obtained the presidency twice by
> kowtowing to moderates, only to suddenly turn hard-core
> left-wing once he got into office.
Where is the proof of that? And even if that's what he did, so what? Under the Clinton years, Americans were happy, healthy, wealthy, and peaceful, and that's far more than what either Bush can claim about his presidency.
> Nobody has taken away anybody's right to choose. A woman
> can choose to abstain. A woman can choose to use a
> contraceptive. A woman can choose to demand that her
> partner use a contraceptive. A woman can choose to put the
> child up for adoption. A woman can choose to raise the
> child. A woman can even choose an abortion.
A woman can also give you the finger and tell you it's about time the Religious Right stopped trying to legislate what she can and cannot do with her own body.
> Abortion isn't going away, even if all nine justices are conservative.
Maybe so, but you can be damn well sure they'll try
to make it go away.