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 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-310 next last
To: Protagoras
To me, just sitting on our hands while our entire culture is destroyed is not a reasonable option.
281
posted on
11/19/2003 9:31:52 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: Protagoras
Also, I disagree that passing a Constitutional amendment is "federalizing" marriage. It's simply defining it.
282
posted on
11/19/2003 9:32:52 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
Comment #283 Removed by Moderator
To: B Knotts
To me, just sitting on our hands while our entire culture is destroyed is not a reasonable option. Then don't just sit on your hands. That would be your choice.
To suggest that anything other than federalizing the problem is sitting on one's hands is quite spurious.
284
posted on
11/19/2003 9:35:12 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
To: B Knotts
Also, I disagree that passing a Constitutional amendment is "federalizing" marriage. It's simply defining it.On the federal level. That's federalizing it.
If you want to make a case for a STATE constitutional amendent, I'm with you.
285
posted on
11/19/2003 9:37:43 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
To: Protagoras
The other option would be to work at the state level; I agree. However, because of the judicial tyranny we now live under,
that won't work. If they outlaw it in Mass., they will find another state, and they will convince the court to enforce "full faith & credit" to "federalize" gay marriage. SCOTUS will ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, as it is mere legislation vs. "full faith & credit" which is in the Constitution.
You don't take a knife to a gunfight.
286
posted on
11/19/2003 9:38:17 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: B Knotts
We simply disagree. And if you look at the history of amendments you will see the law of unintended consequences applies.
We need less federal control, not more.
And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.
Then states can do what they want and suffer or enjoy the consequences.
287
posted on
11/19/2003 9:47:40 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
To: Protagoras
And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages. I could go along with that. That could even be the Marriage Amendment.
288
posted on
11/19/2003 9:51:38 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj
I forgot to mention Jack Ryan of Illinois as another example of a pro-life conservative we should support in his run for the U.S. Senate.
289
posted on
11/19/2003 9:54:22 AM PST
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: AuH2ORepublican
BTW, I love your screen name.
290
posted on
11/19/2003 9:59:08 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: RobbyS
As a matter of fact one does not have to have a license to "marry" since two persons who cohabit for a period of time are married in a sense. Common law marriages aren't recognized in all states.
To: maica
Thanks for your post. The Mass. Supreme Court questioned what harm could come from allowing gay marriages? Your point goes to the heart of answering that question.
Civil society has a strong interest in protecting marriage and the family. Children, and all future generations benefit by honoring the marriage union. Society benefitted by stable marriages because stable children were created. Business was encouraged provide health care for the family because what was good for the family was good for them. Homosexual "couples" bring no benefit to society. It seems that their primary goal to the benefits society has long agreed should go to the family.
Sadly, we have been losing ground on this issue for years. The marriage and divorce laws were loosened making it more likely that children would be raised by one parent. The 35 year experiment of easier divorces have proven that children aren't better off (see Whitehead article on Divorce). Marriage has taken a beating and pronouncements today on the sanctity of marriage falls on a large number of deaf ears.
Couple the increase in divorce with the increased number of children born out of wedlock and the problem is so great as to make it virtually impossible to "get the genie back into the bottle."
Let's hope that the tide can and will turn. Pray that 2004 will bring a backlash as the "silent majority" vote and give Republicans an even larger majority in both houses. We've seen the clout a very small segment of society can have, able to sway courts and Democratic leaders to supports their causes. We must believe that the majority (though slim) can work to set these things right.
Also, let's hope these judges can be reached to rethink their decision. If not, they can be impeached.
To: Stop Legal Plunder
In 1960 they weren't recognized anywhere. I think Louisiana was the last to abolish it. But then came the
60s and its reinstitution. This is in response to the tremedous number of couples who don't bother to have a formal marriage and just sort of "jump over the broomstick together."
293
posted on
11/19/2003 10:48:46 AM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: discipler
They are not going to change their minds. It is who they are.
Lawyers dominate evey department of government and even private industry. Shoot everyone in a board meeting and you are bound to hit a lawyer.
294
posted on
11/19/2003 10:52:19 AM PST
by
RobbyS
(XP)
To: PhiKapMom
Thath's juth mean.
295
posted on
11/19/2003 10:56:45 AM PST
by
South40
(My vote helped defeat cruz bustamante; did yours?)
To: discipler
Let's hope that the tide can and will turn. Pray that 2004 will bring a backlash as the "silent majority" vote and give Republicans an even larger majority in both houses. We've seen the clout a very small segment of society can have, able to sway courts and Democratic leaders to supports their causes. We must believe that the majority (though slim) can work to set these things right.Jim Taranto, I think it was, said that this decision may make the frog jump out of the pot instead of staying in the ever-increasing warmth of the cooking water.
I like this analogy , and pray that it will be so. For any basically conservative, but up-til-now not-interested-in-politics, American voter, this affront to our values by 4 judges should be the catalyst to getting some serious Republican senators elected next year.
296
posted on
11/19/2003 11:25:58 AM PST
by
maica
(Leadership matters)
To: AuH2ORepublican
I am very aware of Jack Ryan, and he is a stellar candidate. He is a successful investment banker who sold his business to give back to the community. Currently, he teaches at an inner-city parochial school for free, and even helps pay for books and materials. He is a compassionate conservative with TWO capitol C's.
To: TrappedInLiberalHell
would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle
They can do that right now in ANY state. All they have to do is go to a lawyer and have the proper papers drawn up for wills, joint ownership etc. They don't NEED the state to certify their relationship. They are determined to undermine the family basis of society and thousands of years of historical evidence that family solidarity makes liveable societies possible.
To: Reactionary
"These beings were complete, incredibly happy, and even arrogant. This angered the gods who were incredibly jealous. The gods split these beings in half, which is the present state of mankind. We all search for our other half in hopes of becoming whole again."
Actually, Aristophanes says that men and women were originally shaped like the sun, the stars, the moon. They were shaped like the celestial gods, having been created by them.
As to the second point, these "original" human beings rebelled against the Gods. Aristophanes does not indicate as to why this happened.
The rest? I don't have a problem with it. It appears to be accurate. :)
To: B Knotts
SCOTUS will ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, as it is mere legislation vs. "full faith & credit" which is in the ConstitutionAs they should.
There is no question that the Federal Constitution requres 50-state recognition of Massachusetts gay "marriages", and that DOMA, to the extent that it contradicts this plain fact, is unconstitutional.
DOMA will be struck down the first time it is challenged, probably within three months.
I hate the idea of an amendment (and it will rapidly become unmanageable, as court usurpations proliferate)-but it has to be done.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 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