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.

[breakem]

You made arrogant, ignorant comments about our marriage. I don't expect an apology, but I sure as hell will point it out, that you are an idiot if you think you know anything about us. As for children, when you let yours out of the house, I hope they have the good sense to think on their own.

[MJY1288]

I understand, Common Law and Civil Unions are subject to the applicable laws of each state, and I have no problem with that, But when a State Court rules on this subject as if it was a case of Civil Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it opens the door wide for that decision to be used as "Case Law" in another State which could be appealed to the federal level and raise concerns with States rights, and will probably need an amendment to the US Constitution in order to settle it

[breakem]

The ignorance in your post requires no other response.

[concerned about politics]

Which is why homosexuals don't want public votes on their special rights ordinances.

That's right. People do not see them as "normal." They're not.
It's propaganda. Many have believed it. Most are finally seeing through it. It's about time.

[longtermmemmory]

you are preaching to the legal choir.

[hunter112]

In the face of judicial tyranny there are only two options

I feel that a lot of folks here are going to be somewhat disappointed when the President explains that his remarks are intended only to keep gay marriage from spreading. I really can't see how the Federal government can compel a State to define marriage according to a national standard, without the withholding of funds related to the institution, much the same way highway funds were withheld to get a 55 MPH speed limit some years ago.

Certainly, sending troops in to Massachusetts to arrest Supreme Court judges (maybe I'm reading too much into one of your "options") would hand a massive campaign issue to Kerry, presuming he becomes the nominee. No, if the President is going to go nuclear (or, "nucular", as he likes to say) on gay marriage, he'll do it after the election, which means there will be several thousand gay couples bearing Massachusetts marriage certificates between May and November. He'd better hope he's the winner of that election when he goes to act, if he intends to do so.

I just see him saying what makes the majority of Americans feel comfortable, without really pushing the issue that much. He'd be smart to let Kerry spend way more time talking about gay marriage than he does.

[breakem]

I think your right wanting the same rights and benefits of other taxpayers is tyrannical. Do you know the meaning of the word, propaganda? Tyranny, LOL!

[concerned about politics]

The ignorance in your post requires no other response.

Where was I wrong? Homosexuals were always kept in mental institutions for public safety. There were no homosexual child molestations, AIDs, or dictated laws. The country was much better off keeping them off the streets.
Look at how many diseases they spread. NAMBLA is giving classes on how to molest young boys and not get caught! The dictators from the bench gave NAMBLA it's blessings!
To you, this is "normal" behavior?

[Johnny_Cipher]

apparently, you're not paying attention.

I might say the same thing about you.

[MJY1288]

"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 desperately 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."

I agree, but acceptance is a Social issue, and no law can guarantee that everyone is bound by law to accept them. What I'm talking about is the legalities of marriage being tied to U.S. Constitutional guaranteed Civil Rights, and how this issue could become a Federal issue that will need an Amendment much like Roe-v-Wade, but this time we want to win this one

[MJY1288]

OK!!! I'll shut up now :-)

[concerned about politics]

I like the ammendment idea. This issue is a social issue, and needs to go before the voters. Only they should decide the meaning of marrage. It's their country. They need to take it back from the left wing misfits.
One law for the entire country. That should get the strange little groups off the peoples back once and for all.

[longtermmemmory]

The constitution was used to impose the voting age of 18.

The constitution was used to impose the abolition of slavery.

The constitution was used to impose ...

So in answer your question, yes they can and should.

You should not that this only takes the federal questions out of the issue. mass can do whatever it wants within its own borders. It is just that states like vermont can not impose their view on homosexual union on texas.

[longtermmemmory]

no, don't do that.

[longtermmemmory]

The amendments, as you can all see they do have a tendency to involve thos pesky social issues.

Amendments

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Congressional Pay Limitation

[concerned about politics]

We also need to fill the house and senate with good people who will make decent decisions. We need a landslide in 2004. We need to correct the errs on the bench. If this doesn't happen, imagine what will be getting "married" tomorrow.

"I now pronounce you it and it. you may kiss it."

I've always said if homosexual marriage passes, I'm going to buy a new SUV and marry it. That way I won't have to pay for it. They can't reposess it! Kidnapping my spouse would be a felony.

[JohnnyZ]

Bush on terror: kick arse.
Kerry on terror: duh...

Bush on taxes: cut them.

Kerry on taxes: raise them...no lower them...duh...

Bush on abortion: get rid of it.

Kerry on abortion: I hate abortions. Let's have more of them. Duh.

Bush on gun control: no mas.

Kerry on gun control: duh...

Bush on queer marriage: not on my watch.

Kerry on QM: Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh! Duh!

That is a great impression of Kerry, and illustrates why we should be cheering him on to the Rat nomination.