Skip to comments.
Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
The White House ^
| Nov 18, 2003
| President Bush
Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom
Statement by the President On Marriage
November 18, 2003
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; catholiclist; clark; dean; family; goodridge; homosexualagenda; howarddean; kerry; marriage; matrimony; presbush; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 301-310 next last
To: COURAGE
You are right in the sense that most societies have used some form of religious ceremony to join a man and a woman in marriage, and that was sufficient in the eyes of the society's laws. I was speaking of the more recent practice of actual government intrusion into such traditions, which occurred when governments began requiring licenses to get married.
141
posted on
11/18/2003 5:11:52 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
To: SunStar
Marriages in one state MUST be recognized by other states. I hadn't considered that. It seems like a pretty big loophole to me, the way a single state can effectively dictate national policy by being the lowest common denominator. I'm reminded of that adage I learned in Jazz Band -- the band is only as good as its weakest member. In this case, our country's marriage laws are only as meaningful as the most liberal state.
To: SunStar
Marriages are safe in Virginia -- so far. The following Code section was passed in 1997, I believe.
§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.
A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.
To: Indy Pendance
Don't you get the feeling this is just another nail in the coffin of our constitution? Not if the Constitution is amended.
144
posted on
11/18/2003 5:21:58 PM PST
by
SunStar
(Democrats piss me off!)
To: PhiKapMom; All
Gephardt Statement on Massachusetts Court Decision on Gay Marriage November 18, 2003 -
Washington, DC "While I support civil unions for same-sex couples, I also support the right of states to make decisions regarding the protections afforded same-sex couples. I do not support gay marriage, but I hope the Massachusetts State Legislature will act in a manner that is consistent with today's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling.
"As we move forward, it is my hope that we don't get side-tracked by the right-wing into a debate over a phony constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I strongly oppose such an effort as purely political and unnecessarily divisive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination."
Source - http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/44/3231
145
posted on
11/18/2003 5:22:28 PM PST
by
steveegg
(Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
To: TrappedInLiberalHell; PhiKapMom; Congressman Billybob
... would it be better for [homosexuals] to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle?...If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around. At least they're committing themselves, which is more mature and less self-serving than being sluts. Canada permits same-sex marriages. Vermont permits civil unions. The New York Times prints "celebrations" of those unions each week, while media profiles of well-adjusted "life partners" are all the rage. If, despite all these mechanisms for commitment, homosexual men continue to be famous for their promiscuity, do you really think giving legal sanction to the additional term "spouse" will lead to fidelity?
To: onyx; *Homosexual Agenda
Unlike Massachusetts, Texas passed a law this year that spelled out that this state DOES NOT RECOGNIZE gay marriage. It really ticked off the 'RATS, which tells me it was a good thing. I would be livid to live in a state that would give them cover. ICK !! ...
In fact, I'm quite unhappy about the FAGACHUSSETTS ruling.
147
posted on
11/18/2003 5:26:25 PM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
To: Grampa Dave
Last but not least, the rats being controlled by Soros will not go over very well with a lot of Americans. Has Soros met clintoon, do you know ?? ...
148
posted on
11/18/2003 5:29:20 PM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
It requires the Supreme Court to discover another right. Maybe the abortion debacle has taught the Court a little humility so that they will let the States work it out on their own terms. Only little more than a century ago, Utah was forced to reject the institution of polygamy, although by most accounts it was far better than the fractured family structures that have so degrade monogamy.
149
posted on
11/18/2003 5:29:45 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: Stop Legal Plunder
do you really think giving legal sanction to the additional term "spouse" will lead to fidelity? I don't know what to think. I don't understand the typical gay person's motivation. Being a magnanimous sort, I'd venture to say that they'd treat marriage with no more (and no less) seriousness than most heterosexuals. Given the infidelity and divorce rates among heterosexual married couples, that's not saying much. Marriage is dying in this country. At the very least, it doesn't mean what it used to mean (an understatement).
To: MeeknMing
In fact, I'm quite unhappy about the FAGACHUSSETTS ruling. It wouldn't surprise me if people start vandalizing road signs, blotting out or otherwise obscuring the first letter in "Massachussetts". Not that I advocate any such thing -- it's juvenile and criminal. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
To: spodefly
".....They have never made any comments regarding their sexuality or any comments related to the homosexual agenda. .......... As repulsed as I am by homosexuality in general, I never once felt that when thinking about my aunts....."Since they never talked about it how do you know they were Lesbians? Whatever happened to two spinsters who just never married because men didn't find them to their suiting or for some other reason they never married but not because of them being homosexual.
If your Aunt had made up a will she could have left whatever she had to whom ever she wanted.
Homosexuals already have all the same rights that heterolsexuals have. The only right they do not have is to change the diffination of marriage. They are not fighting for the right to have the ability to have spousel insurance or medical previlages etc, etc, they can have all that.
They just want to change the whole meaning of marriage as between a man and a women.
152
posted on
11/18/2003 5:41:18 PM PST
by
Spunky
(This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
To: jde1953
If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
That is a logical conclusion. It's fair for the state to require registration after the fact, for legal record-keeping, tax purposes, etc., but it's wrong for the government to pretend to be God and grant or withhold permission by "licensing" marriages. No license is required to start a newspaper or print a book; surely marriage is at least as fundamental a human right.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
Only if the religion claims exclusive right to preside over the ceremony. That's certainly not the case of Christianity (the Bible records several marriages performed without clergy: e.g. Issac's marriage to Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), some Christians' mistaken views to the contrary notwithstanding.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
Again, only if the religion claims such; which Christianity does not. The only restrictions of this sort that the Bible places on marriage is that Christians may not marry outside the faith.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.
Again, only if the particular religion says the state has no right to recognize marriage legally, and there's nothing like that in the Bible. The state may, and should, add its recognition of marriage to the biblical one, but it may not legitimately supplant it, e.g., by requiring licenses.
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I think that fidelity means even less in the "gay community." In my opinion as soon as the gay lobby gets the right to a marriage license, they will soon tire of the charade. But it was no fault divorce that killed marriage. A question to consider is whether middle-class values can survive without the nuclear family. The experience of the black community make this doubtful.
154
posted on
11/18/2003 5:45:02 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: MeeknMing
Bubba has lost weight except in his red bulbous nose.
155
posted on
11/18/2003 5:45:43 PM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
To: Wolfstar
"I was speaking of the more recent practice of actual government intrusion into such traditions, which occurred when governments began requiring licenses to get married."More recent? And when might that have been?
156
posted on
11/18/2003 5:46:34 PM PST
by
Spunky
(This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
To: PhiKapMom
The democrats are trying to destroy the America we know and love and instill their own perverted ideas on us and our children and we must not let them get away with it.
157
posted on
11/18/2003 5:46:36 PM PST
by
b4its2late
(Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Hillary's from hell. Deal with it.)
To: Stop Legal Plunder
The state has the right to protect marriage which, after all, involves the joining of estates and concerns the rearing of children. The marriagce license is intended to certifying that each party is free to marry, that no other person has claim to either party.
158
posted on
11/18/2003 5:48:40 PM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: Wolfstar
After reading the several responses above from Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Lieberman, et. al., I am struck by the fact that the Left suddenly believes in states rights! What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. "Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."
To: MeeknMing
Texas is Reublican --- Fagachusettes is run by democrat, proving that you get what you elect --- IOW --- the voters are reaping what they have sown.
160
posted on
11/18/2003 5:49:06 PM PST
by
onyx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 301-310 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson