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.

[Amerigomag]

Giveumhell Jr.

[breakem]

We have propagandists on this site saying that they need to defend marriage from homosexuals. Adultery and divorce have been wearing away at marriage for a long time, but no call for an amendment outlawing these pernicious acts. We have people saying that homosexuals want to be married to destroy marriage. The illogic of this illustrates what passes for intelligent discourse here. All homosexuals are considered as a monolith and no regard for individual rights and responsibilities.

Today the president said that marriage is a SACRED institution. If that is true what business does the state have in the issue at all?

[MississippiMan]

Serious is doing.

My point exactly. He's making "if" statements about the courts that are irrelevant. The threshold he's talking about has already been met.

MM

[puroresu]

#####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?#####

If we can get the votes to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, it would likely settle the matter. Even the most activist judges couldn't stand against such an expression of popular will.

However, the pro-gay marriage forces are counting on stopping the amendment by getting some conservatives to join them on this issue. Already we're seeing some conservatives oppose the federal marriage amendment on state's rights grounds. That would be all well and good **IF** we weren't about to have gay marriage imposed on all fifty states, in violation of state's rights, by the courts.

So we'll see some conservatives opposing this amendment. Perhaps it will be enough to kill it. Those conservatives will then pat themselves on the back for defending state's rights, and they'll keep up the patting until a few months later when the Supreme Court mows down the marriage laws of 49 states and orders them to pass one which complies with the Massachusetts state court ruling mandating gay marriage.

[Dog Gone]

Today's ruling is far more serious than I originally thought. There's no easy way to stop it from becoming the law of the entire nation, and maybe no feasible hard way, either.

I guess we need another state's Supreme Court to rule completely opposite (I suppose a Circuit Court could do likewise, assuming proper jurisdiction is established), and then hope for a favorable US Supreme Court ruling.

Given their recent ruling in the Texas sodomy case, I don't like the odds, but they may be the only ones we have.

Two years of legal gay marriage in Massachussetts probably can't be undone from a political perspective.

[Publius]

The constitutional amendment process is entirely a function of the legislative branch.

Yes and no.

There is also A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution.

[MississippiMan]

If he's serious?

Yes, if he's serious, he needs to stop talking and do everything he can to get the amendment rolling. Perhaps just talking about things convinces you--not me, especially when a politician is doing the talking.

MM

[jwalsh07]

Adultery and divorce have been wearing away at marriage for a long time, but no call for an amendment outlawing these pernicious acts.

People abuse institutions all the time, it says nothing of the institution.

Your argument is the same I keep hearing about the Super Bowl half time show. Well, the imagery of a guy ripping off a gals shirt is not the best thing to broadcast over the public airways but those commercials were even worse so de facto, there's no problem with the boob exposing Janet's Boob.

Now there's some illogic for you.

The solution is to crapcan the commercials and the prurient half time show while preserving the institution of football.

[PhiKapMom]

And what is President Bush supposed to do about this? He has asked Congress to act. Unlike the previous moron in the job, he doesn't use Executive Orders to legislate!

Better take a lesson in Government 101 -- the President does not make laws!

[jrlc]

Kerry consulting with top advisor re gay marriage. "Maybe if I flip-flop on the issue, there's a way to BRIDGE the whole Massachusetts problem."

[Spiff]

This is the George W. Bush that I like. The guy that I voted for. Where's he been?

[jwalsh07]

Today's ruling is far more serious than I originally thought. There's no easy way to stop it from becoming the law of the entire nation, and maybe no feasible hard way, either.

I've been trying to spread the word on the process going on in Mass for a couple of years now. I saw it coming after Birmingham refused to allow a vote. Nobody listened but I did get accused of crying wolf quite a bit.

I think the only solution is a Constitutional Amendment and the process should start soon.

O'Connor is totally unreliable, Kennedy is stuck with his Lawrence ramblings and they have 4 sure votes to cite the full faith and credit clause. They will get either Kennedy, most likely, or O'Connor.

SCOTUS is no hope.

[nopardons]

We have a president. He doesn't have the powers of a King, dictator, Emperor,Tsar,or Kaiser.

WHAT DO YOU WANT HIM TO DO AND DOES HE HAVE THE POWER TO DO IT ?

[MJY1288]

Too bad we couldn't get that guy on the left to become Hillary's "Designated Driver" :-)

[DoughtyOne]

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

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.

---

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. IV.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Pray tell, how would a Constutional remedy to same sex marriage help at all?

Some of our leaders don't honor the artices incorporated into the Constitution now.

Essentially this was little more than comic relief.

[jwalsh07]

I don't see how you guys do it!

:-} Grandkids, internet, satellite. In that order.

[puroresu]

#####I've been trying to spread the word on the process going on in Mass for a couple of years now. I saw it coming after Birmingham refused to allow a vote. Nobody listened but I did get accused of crying wolf quite a bit.#####


Yep! And I remember when the sodomy ruling came down, and a lot of "conservatives" on here defended the ruling on the grounds that it expanded "liberty". Some people tried to warn them that that ruling would lead to a lot of mischief, but that argument was likewise considered to be crying wolf. Not surprisingly, though, Margaret Marshall cited that ruling in her edict legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

There seems to always be a block of conservatives who are too blind to see the obvious even when it's headed straight for them. I guarantee you that a percentage of the conservatives here will oppose the federal marriage amendment as unnecessary, an overreaction, a violation of state's rights, etc. And they'll hold onto that belief right up until the moment their state's marriage law is voided by an activist U.S. Supreme Court hell-bent on redefining marriage and imposing that redefinition on all the states. Then, it'll be too late, and any talk about state's rights on this issue will be a joke.

[Dog Gone]

A US Constitutional amendment would have to be introduced immediately and be backed by a huge upswelling of public support.

I'd have to do some research to see how fast a constitutional amendment became law in modern times, but I don't think it's ever been fast. For example, the Texas legislature isn't even scheduled to meet again until 2005 (We'd call a special session to ratify this amendment, I'd think).

I think the best strategy is to get the US Supreme Court to undo this, because it could happen faster than the Constitutional amendment process. But I'd start both efforts RFN.

[jwalsh07]

Sadly, I think you are correct.