STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ON THE MA SUPREME COURT RULING APPROVING GAY MARRIAGE

The White House ^ | February 4, 2004 | President George W. Bush

[PhiKapMom]

February 4, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

[SarahW]

Well, he's got my vote.

[mdmathis6]

I don't see how the Mass Supremes can order a legislative branch to write any legislation....it becomes a separation of powers issues..of which the court has flouted!

[jwalsh07]

Exactly.

[July 4th]

The Democratic convention is in Massachusetts, Kerry is from Massachusetts - it will be very easy to make the point that the "Northeastern liberals" are trying to take over the country.

[puroresu]

#####Here's my question. Let's say gay couple A gets legally married in Massachusetts. Then, they move to a new state which does not recognize gay marriage, and, in fact, has an amendment defining marriage as that of a man and a woman. What happens then? Is the new state obliged to recognize the marriage from another state? Or does gay couple A have grounds to take it to the SCOTUS?#####


At that point, the other 49 states and the American people will be at the mercy of Justices Ginzburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, a.k.a. the Sodomy Six.

[rintense]

This is exactly what will happen. You can pretty much guarantee that GLAAD has this agenda set. They will use the Mass. ruling to set other states in motion, and challenge whether a gay marriage in Mass. is valid in a state with a clear definition of marriage. Let's hope someone somewhere is already preparing legal arguments for the SCOTUS.

Another question. If this is truly a state ruling, can a gay 'spouse' in Mass. be the beneficiary of social security benefits- a federal program- at the state level if there is no federal law giving guidance?

[arasina]

Did you notice how Kerry seems to be trying to sound "Lincolnesque" in his speeches lately?

[Miles Vorkosigan]

They don't mind. They refuse to acknowledge that anything good has come out of America since the Civil War--so, of course, they don't mind seeing it flushed down the toilet.

People who espouse contempt for America have no right to be taken seriously when they claim to know how to save it.

[rintense]

At that point, the other 49 states and the American people will be at the mercy of Justices Ginzburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy, a.k.a. the Sodomy Six.

Then at what point does the will of the American people supercede the will of the SCOTUS? If the American people vote for a 'defense of marriage' amendment, can the SCOTUS overturn it?

[TonyM]

Talk is cheap Mr. President. How about actually doing something about it?

[rintense]

I'm telling you, he doesn't LOOK the same, nor does he SOUND the same. Oliver Stone replaced him with someone, I just know it.

[jwalsh07]

Removal is the only legitimate option. A position of strength is where we should be. The constitution is on our side.

Exactly wrong. Judges will not be removed. Legislators who violated the Mass Constitution will not be thrown out of office. And finally the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution makes liberty issues the province of the states.

Homosexual marriage in Massachusetts is a fait accompli. The remedy now is to make clear that the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution does not force the cultural malaise of one small state on the rest of the country. The only way to accomplish that is through a Constitutional Amendment.

And there you have it.

[puroresu]

This is something I posted on another thread. It explains why the Massachusetts legislature appears so limp-wristed (pun intended) in their response to the state Supreme Court's arrogant usurpation of legislative authority:

First, ever since the desegregation cases, the courts have posed as the embodiment of fashionable morality. The courts are painted as the greatest engine of "social progress" by our media, our school textbooks, and our law schools. The result has been decades of incremental power consolidation by the courts, and subsequent deference to that power by the legislative branches.

Second, many legislators prefer having controversial issues decided by the courts. It keeps them from having to vote on those issues directly. So a large segment of any legislature breaths a sigh of relief every time the courts usurp their power. There are no doubt many legislators in Massachusetts who would gladly turn EVERY issue over to the courts.

Third, the political class is generally far to the left of the electorate. They regard the "common folk", with their regular church attendance and their at least partial attachment to concepts of right and wrong, as rubes and nitwits. But they also have a fear of the people because of their ability to boot them from office. Few members of the Massachusetts legislature would openly argue for gay marriage or vote for it directly. That might lead to getting booted from office by the "rubes". But the court ruling gives them wiggle room. They can oppose overturning the decision on assorted technical grounds, while lying to their constituents about their true feelings. They can tell their constituents, "I oppose gay marriage as much as you do, but tragically the court gave us no option but to legalize it. As much as I oppose what the court did, I felt more harm would come to our system of government, more rancor would be created, and more divisiveness would occur, if we prolonged this debate by calling for constitutional conventions, etc. etc. etc."

This last point, by the way, explains why John Kerry, John Edwards, and many of the other presidential candidates say they oppose gay marriage, but are also opposed to doing anything to stop it. They know gay marriage will come to America not because the voters want it, but because the people ramming it down our throats, the courts, don't have to ever stand for election.

[jwalsh07]

The Democratic convention is in Massachusetts, Kerry is from Massachusetts - it will be very easy to make the point that the "Northeastern liberals" are trying to take over the country.

I forgot about that. Excellent point, the imagery will be stark.

[arasina]

Kerry is The Stepford Candidate.

[Mulder]

In a nation where the U.S. Supreme Court has no qualms about making up rights that don't exist in the Constitution while at the same time ignoring ones that do, a constitutional amendment regarding the sanctity of marriage is nothing more than a waste of time.

The Bush administration already allows the state of Massachusetts to trample on and subvert the 2nd amendment.

What makes anyone think they would enforce this proposed amendment, should it pass (which is not very likely to happen)?

It's more election year gimmicks.

[TomasUSMC]

Yes, make the constitutional amendment takes a long time. Why not pass a law that states that any judge can be impeached or recalled with a majority vote of congress. Of course, that law would be overturned by a judge.

When these laws are overturned they need to be pushed to the Supreme Court as fast as possible. Just like was done in the 2000 election.
To do that you need outrage from our leadership, like in the 2000 election. You need a fighting spirit, like in 2000. I guess above all you need a Supreme Court that feels the need to take the case. If this motivation starts from the top then, Letsroll Mr. President.

To have to wait for a constitutional amendment to define something so plain and common sense as marriage being between a man and a woman is dumb. Whats next, an amendment that defines what a marriage is? An amendment to define what an amendment is? .... oh yeah an amendment to define what is is?

[arasina]

eh....poor choice of words in one of your sentences there. I won't elaborate. :o)

[PhiKapMom]

I definitely feel your pain. I used to watch RI TV because Boston TV was so bad. I don't see how you guys do it!

If only I had the Internet back in those days. Had a computer but not the Internet. We couldn't even get cable TV out in Groton.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Want to read what real homosexuals state as the reasons they want "gay" marriage? They openly admit that their real motivation is to destroy moral standards and the meaning and structure of family. "

OH PLEASE...find a quote from a few and say it represents them all?

Who are you kidding.

Let's pull up some quotes from some extreme Christian groups ans say that represents everything you believe.

The real world doesn't work that way.

Get real