Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)

The White House ^ | Nov 18, 2003 | President Bush

[RobbyS]

What dumbfounds me is how the court simply brushed history aside and made the law conform to a radical egalitarianism. It would be interesting to know the personal backgrounds of these judges.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Should that come to pass, however, I predict that those churches which are against homosexual marriages (and there are many more of them than there are for such nonsense) will simply disband and re-form at a later date."

I hope and pray that you are right about that. The Episcopal church is learning about this, and the orthodox are in the process of disbanding. However, the topic is important and will take vigilance from all church members. There are other denominations that are likely to be facing the same issues soon.

[longtermmemmory]

It depends on the state you are in. In many states, regardles of the amount of time you live together you are not married.

The common term is "common law marriage." The license is a society keeping track of children and inheritance. (for isses like widowers/widows shares of estate required by laws)

[ellery]

You raise an interesting point: is the use of the word "marriage" the major problem? Or is it the granting of civil benefits to gay couples?

In any case, this and all "culture war" issues should be left to the states. We as a nation are not of one mind on these issues -- rather than fight out a one-size-fits-all solution, we should let localities rule as provided in the US Constitution.

[ellery]

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.

One could say the same of states-rights-minded conservatives who want a federal solution to this issue. We should take these jerks up on their states' rights proposal and use it as a weapon to push states' rights on issues that they want to control federally.

[ellery]

My condolences for the loss of your aunt. I think we conservatives would do well to consider what positive path we can promote, in line with conservatism in general. Maybe that is states' rights, maybe it's getting government out of the business of marriage altogether, maybe it's sanctioning legal rights to gay unions while reserving marriage to heterosexual couples. It seems to me that the major areas that require protection here are: religious (religions have the right to preach against homosexuality); and community standards (localities have the right to decide cultural issues for themselves). On the other side, there are injustices like the one you describe that should not be ignored.

We've seen how poorly the democrats do when they simply oppose without providing alternative solutions; we should try to avoid doing the same thing.

[GregoryFul]

it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle Excuse me - you think that this will change their lifestyle? If so, you do not understand perversity! This is merely a way for these perverts to form (temporary) alliances to obtain benefits originally structured to support the socially beneficial, and costly role of spawning and raising the next generation - borne by the traditional families in this country.

Is homosexuality an inevitable part of our culture? Perhaps, but so is rape, prostitution, theft, murder, drug abuse, corruption - by your standards, I guess we should accept these "failings" because they are an inevitable part of our culture. And the practitioners should be awarded tax advantages to encourage their (anti-) social behaviors. Nonesense!

With your way of thinking it will not be long before NAMBLA wins its case in the MA supreme court, clearly composed of addle minded nincompoops. After all, the NAMBLA's only have love for the kids! They will be able to marry the child (or animal) of their choice!

[RobbyS]

Does it matter after the Lee Marvin case? You can always find some court that will recognize time put in.

[spodefly]

Thanks for the reply.

[Graymatter]

Couple (npi) of questions.

Say a 29-yr-old man wants to marry a 16-yr-old man. Does the young one need parent's permission? Whose last name do they use? After they get married, 16-er has a gradual change of proclivity and falls in love with a woman. Does he have to "divorce" his husband first? Can his husband charge him with adultery? If he goes to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, and he marries the woman there, is he a bigamist in his previous state of residence?

Can a woman take a wife in one state while being a man's wife in another? Who buries you when you're dead, unexpectedly? Which one is next of kin, your husband or your wife? If you are bisexual, do you have both gay rights and straight rights, or just one kind? Will married bisexuals have a right to gay civil union despite being married to the opposite gender?

[b9]

thank you :o)

[b9]

thank you, m'lady :o)

[risk]

I will oppose any attempts by the right wing

I see.

[doug from upland]

The decision had no effect on Mary Jo Kopechne.

[.45MAN]

ping

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, he was so "proud" to sign that law he did in it the middle of the night.

[Fledermaus]

Geez, not the old "hospital visitation" canard. That's so old it's laughable. Anyone can visit during visiting hours.

What they are talking about is some hospitals only allow immediate family and spouses to remain in the room overnight, sit in the ER, go to pre-op, etc.

And not all hospitals have those rules. Heck, the only time I was ever in a hospital (1997 - 3 days) I had lots of visitors and half my nurses were gay men. I can't believe a hospital that hires gays wouldn't let a gay partner sit in the room at the request of the person in the hospital.

I'd love to see some real statistics on this since it's been thrown out by the gay community for decades.

As to any other "rights", gay partners can specify their relationship and use power of attorney, living wills, wills, etc. to make sure their partner receives property afte death, etc. Last time I checked, you can buy term life insurance for anyone. If a gay couple want to buy it and leave each other as beneficiary, they don't care as long as you pay your bill. Most heterosexuals don't have will and their estates in up in probate.

Other arguments like Social Security survivor benefits are miniscule and almost ridiculous since they are small for everyone.

I've asked over and over of gay activists...what EXACTLY (and be specific) is the lack of marriage denying you? It sure can't be benefits in the tax code because there are none for married people. I've been married (no kids) for 18 years and every year I've computed our tax liability as singles, married filing separately, and married filing jointly. We always come out with more tax when we are filing jointly. Even if kids were involved, a gay person declaring head of household with a partner declaring single would be better off overall than if they could marry and file jointly.

[Fledermaus]

If the Massachusetts legislature decides to legalize same-sex marriages, it will be up to each state to decide whether those marriages will be valid in their state-- and that is a choice each state, not the courts, will have to make.

OMG...the only sensible thing that has ever come out of a Democrats mouth...and from Clark to boot! His old Republicanism must be leaking through. I think he'd be the only Dem candidate respectful of states rights.

But I'm sure he'll want the feds forcing their will on all states over some other issue.

[.45MAN]

Thoughts that make you go HMMMMM........

[narses]

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.

The other side says:

Statement of Governor Dean on Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling

MANCHESTER--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling:

"As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together -- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."

-- 30 --

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10573&