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

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

[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.

[agrace]

It's remarkable to me to be reading these statements that seem to champion state's rights when we all know that the second a state might assert itself on a different issue, say abortion (I can dream), these same politicians would be howling in protest.

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

The judiciary is made up of 'men' who are prone to arrogance. This crew is another good example. However, there are checks and balances (the legislature, the people). Let's hope they use them to pass the state constitutional amendment and slap these tyrants down.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"There is something conservatives need to remember. Judges are only nominated by Presidents and Governors. It's the Senators (U.S. or state) who actually confirm them"

---

True, but a judge can't be confirmed if the executive doesn't nominate him. If RINO Governors Weld and Cellucci hadn't nominated liberals to the Mass. Supreme Court, we wouldn't have had a decision like Goodridge. It is imperative that we elect conservative governors and (obviously) presidents.

But I agree with you that electing conservative Senators is also of paramount importance, and that's why we need to support Pat Toomey in PA, Herman Cain or Mac Collins in GA (I personally prefer Cain, but Collins would be fine as well, since he's also a conservative who will win in November), Mel Martinez or Daniel Webster in FL, Richard Burr in NC, Jim DeMint in SC, David Vitter in LA and other conservative Republican Senate candidates. And in a state such as NY, where a true conservative would face a very uphill battle against Schumer, we should embrace Rudy Giuliani in spite of his pro-abortion position, since the R next to his name will keep the GOP in the majority in the Senate and in the Judiciary Committee and since Rudy wouldn't vote to filibuster a Bush nominee. As much as I hate Chafee, you've got to admit that had the pro-life Dem Bob Weygand won in 2000 the RATs would have been in control of the Senate from January of 2001 (which means W. probably wouldn't have gotten his first tax cut and some other laws passed) and Weygand would have been yet another vote in favor of the judicial filibusters (which Chafee has not been). In conclusion, I think we should be more willing to accept a RINO Senator from a liberal state than a RINO governor from any state. As fieldmarshaldj can attest, the damage done by RINO governors is far worse than anything a RINO Senator could ever do (and that includes the Jeffords party switch).

[MeekOneGOP]

Amen !!

[longtermmemmory]

only in CA. Each state varies. The only time any state court in those jurisdictions will mess with the subject is over tangible items like a house or pets (small claims).

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Salvation]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---

[blackie]

"Almost makes you think we need to send the MA Supreme Court the definition of what is a man and a woman!"

The lunatic left are impervious to logic or the truth!

[RobbyS]

It applies in Texas as well. All that is needed is a lawyer clever enough to get a judge to accept the precedent. You know the drill. If the case is messy, thrown in any precedent that might apply.

[Protagoras]

Anyone that needs an additional reason to support President Bush over any DemocRAT -- here it is!

More needed.

[RobbyS]

In Texas and other states judges are still elected. We need to resist the trend to let them be appointed by governors.

[Protagoras]

Marriage is not a federal matter.

[Protagoras]

Anyone who posts that there is no difference between the two parties should have their posting privileges banned for posting without a mind.

It's not that they have no differences, it's the amazing amount of similarities which troubles thinking people.

People who don't see that regularly post with no mind.

[Grampa Dave]

Naw, those who say there is no difference are so out of touch with reality.

They need a new mantra from Soros who probably finances all of the whacko third parties and gives them the same mantra, "There is no difference!"

May all of the third party whiners, keep chanting the same old mantra, "There is no difference!" while marching deeper into total irrelevance. Their total votes in 2004 if they even have a candidate will be less than 1% of the population.

[Protagoras]

Hey! Cinfla is that you? Another Soros paranoid obsession? LOL

None of your off topic nonsense addresses my point about the many many shared positions. I wonder why?

[ppaul]

[B Knotts]

Marriage is not a federal matter.

I used to think that way, too. But I now realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that all this stuff is a federal matter, and they will impose their will; let there be no doubt about it.

And this stuff will work its way up to SCOTUS, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to "cut 'em off at the pass" with a Marriage Amendment.

It's sad that we have to do it, but I don't see any other way. The enemies of tradition and family are using every tactic they know to tear down everything that is good.

[COURAGE]

Nope, I'm right.

Luke 11:45-52 One of the lawyers answered him, "Teacher, in saying this you insult us also." He said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won't even lift one finger to help carry those burdens. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. So you testify and consent to the works of your fathers. For they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.' Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge. You didn't enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered."

[Grampa Dave]

Amen:

This stuff will work its way up to SCOTUS, so the best thing to do, IMO, is to "cut 'em off at the pass" with a Marriage Amendment.

It's sad that we have to do it, but I don't see any other way. The enemies of tradition and family are using every tactic they know to tear down everything that is good.

[Protagoras]

We disagree. And the fact remains that marriage is not a federal matter, and correctly so. We don't need to federalize more things.