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.

[normy]

Sorry I posted the last one before I read your post, but I will answer.

Married couples have certain benefits afforded it by the govt. as well as by corporations. The reason these benefits are given to married couples is because marriage and procreation are the building blocks of society.

If homosexuals wish to be recognised as married then they will be given the benefits off married couples or married couples will lose their privledge given by the govt.

Even when I was single I knew the reason why families get tax breaks and I paid more but families are supposed to be the base of society.

If you want govt. out of marriage then we need to repeal any benefits given by govt. to married couples.

[concerned about politics]

What Gays want is to be "Officially" recognized in legally binding relationships that guarantee them survivorship rights on things like the natural laws of inheritance and SS benefits, I believe that is how this becomes a national issue.

They have it. It's called a civil union.
No, they're after morality. They want to destroy the concept, where any vile activity is acceptable. That way, they're "normal."
Morality is their black eye. (Aids is their punishment).

[PhiKapMom]

These judges and the 9th Circuit seem to have a lot in common -- both extremely liberal and attempt to legislate from the bench.

[kingu]

As an incorporation of common law, it will recieve broad interpritation and protection. Adopting this WILL send the right message to judges.

Let's go back in history for a moment here. Had the framers of the constitution put in, say, what age people were permitted to be married, how different would today's society be? When the constitution was written, 35 years old was really old. If you went back in time and told them that the average person could look forward to reaching 70 years of age, they would have laughed at you. What if they had put in a limit of four horses for transport? The modifications made today will likely still be there two hundred years from now. Do you want to imagine what changes in society might occur over that time?

Roe v Wade - how does this proposed amendment handle that issue? Sodomy being a right? The separation of powers must be reestablished, not a new bandaid put on a wound that is going to open up time and time again.

[PhiKapMom]

The President is standing on morality,Kerry is standing in fertilizer.

That statement is a keeper! I love it because it is so true!

[nicmarlo]

These judges and the 9th Circuit seem to have a lot in common

The 9th Circus, you mean....along with the Supreme Mass and the Florida Kangaroo courts (the lot of them).....they all have a lot in common...they disgust me.

[Johnny_Cipher]

The President is standing on morality,Kerry is standing in fertilizer.

Dean is standing in a strange looking jacket where the sleeves tie around the back. Edwards is standing on an apple box.

[puroresu]

Thanks! I've observed "liberals" long enough to know how they operate. One way is to use our own values against us.

So, as the debate kicks up over a proposed federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, expect to see a wedge driven between conservatives over the state's rights issue.

Ideally, matters such as marriage law should be left to the states. Ideally, all countries should live in peace with one another as well, but we know that in the real world that doesn't always happen. The same is true with marriage law and state's rights.

What we are seeing is a militant gay agenda to use the courts to force gay marriage on the American people and on the states. Just as it's stupid to talk about peace when the neighboring country has already opened fire on you, it's stupid to spout off idealistic platitudes about state's rights when the federal leviathan is on the verge of taking the issue in question away from the states entirely.


The left will be working overtime to split off some conservatives and bring them into their camp on the federal marriage amendment issue. They did the same thing with libertarians on the sodomy issue, and the result was some unwitting libertarians ended up applauding a huge federal power grab because they erroneously thought it somehow promoted "liberty".

On the marriage amendment front, expect to see some articles entitled, "A Conservative Case Against A Federal Marriage Amendment," or some similar title. Those articles will lecture us about how marriage laws should be left to the states, which would be all well and good if we weren't in the middle of a culture war with opponents who think everything, including marriage law, should be the province of federal judicial activism.

But we are in such a war, and proof that those conservatives who oppose the federal marriage amendment are being manipulated can be seen by asking one very simple question: *** Would the pro-gay marriage forces support a constitutional amendment stating outright that the gay marriage issue should be left to the states?***

The answer is a resounding NO. They would not support such an amendment for the simple reason that they have every intention of using federal power to impose gay marriage on all fifty states in direct violation of state's rights, even as they encourage some blinded conservatives to block the only meaningful proposal to stop such a power grab on, irony of ironies, state's rights grounds.

Would a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman violate state's rights? On a certain level, it would. It would ban states from legalizing gay marriage if they chose to do so. But no state has ever wanted to do that, anyway. Even the people of Massachusetts don't want to legalize gay marriage. They're being railroaded by four arrogant judges.

In addition, a constitutional amendment is a legitimate method of establishing constitutional policy prescribed by the constitution itself. An amendment can only be ratified if the vast majority of states want it.

In contrast, failure to enact this amendment will likely result in a minority position being forced on all fifty states by federal courts in violation not only of state's rights but of the constitution itself. Recognizing that, the federal marriage amendment is more of a defense of state's rights than a breach of them. It's a situation where the states federally codify the policies that they themselves, as states, wish to follow, as opposed to having alien policies forced on them by federal courts against their will and against the people's will.

[gatorbait]

PKM,feel free to use it anytime ,and spread it around ..(Oh bad choice of words)

[longtermmemmory]

we also had to amend the constitution to deal with the simple concept that one person could not own another person.

It is not a bandaid. It is a legislative bullet right between the intelectual eyes of these judges. It is an affirmative act to protect an instution and remove it from the hands of judges. It removes this from the federal issue and puts it to the states.

Judges did not get the brass sphere in one step. The developed them step by step. Even Roe vs Wade was not decided in a vacume, that bad case was groomed and directed based on prior cases for reproductive issues.

A constitutiona amendment on this issue will be a kick in their judicial spheres. It will not be as the homosexuals expected, an impossible battle to put their genie back in the bottle. This in not a bandaid becase it does re-establish the seperation of powers. Judges will not have the same unfettered belief they can legislate acceptance of behavior from the bench.

Judges are not to be trusted.

[MJY1288]

Yes I agree, But "Civil Unions" are much like "Common Law Marriages". They are laws applicable to property owned in that particular State and not laws that apply to Federal Taxes, such as deductions for dependants, or Social Security benefits that apply to surviving spouses

[concerned about politics]

My prayers are that you don't have kids until you are both married in your hearts.

True. It takes a special bond to raise children. Man and woman are compliments of each other. What the man lacks, the woman has. What the woman lacks, the man has. This creates well rounded, healthy children that grow into well rounded healthy adults.
If that completeness is not there and the willingness to bond in a way only a man and woman can bond, the children will suffer. They will live with lack. There will be a hole left in their soul that cannot be repaired.
Only a parent can teach a child unconditional love, but if the parent (or the "village") doesn't understand it, the children will never learn it either.

[longtermmemmory]

the left is using homosexuals the same way hitler used the homsexuals. (Rohlm)

Yo are right is is all about normalizing their chosen sexual conduct.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "What Gays want is to be "Officially" recognized in legally binding relationships that guarantee them survivorship rights on things like the natural laws of inheritance and SS benefits, I believe that is how this becomes a national issue."

Exactly....

[longtermmemmory]

Common law marriage is not recognized in in every state but states do recognize other states common law marriage.

Civil Unions are NOT common law marriage. CT and GA have already refused to extend recognition to vermont civil unions in their divorce courts.

[longtermmemmory]

No to mention that homosexuals are more than free to sign cohabitation agreemetns which are enforcable as contracts. (even heterosexual couples for that matter)

This is about imposing acceptance of their private sexual behavior upon the public at large.

[breakem]

"I cannot fathom how a husband can imagine his wife replaced with a man. You may find this harsh, but since you are not open to convincing there is no utility in being kind or reserved: My prayers are that you don't have kids until you are both married in your hearts."

What fantasy world are you posting from?

[hunter112]

All this natural law, and recognition for lifestyles, and religion stuff aside for a moment:

Does anyone here think Pres. Bush wants an amendment to ban gay marriage in all of the fifty states, or only to keep it contained to the states that either adopt it, or whose Supreme Courts mandate it? In other words, does anyone here think Bush is advocating telling state governments how they can choose to define marriage within their own borders?

[concerned about politics]

Yes I agree, But "Civil Unions" are much like "Common Law Marriages". They are laws applicable to property owned in that particular State and not laws that apply to Federal Taxes, such as deductions for dependants, or Social Security benefits that apply to surviving spouses

OK. Why not add the federal bennies to a civil union? That way, they have what they "need."
But that's not what they "want". They so desperatly want others to see their dysfunctional sex fetish as "normal", no matter who else gets hurt by it. It's all about them and their sex fetish. Nothing more.