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

[kingu]

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

You're speaking of the simple concept that was written into the constitution because that was the political reality of the time, right? Something that took nearly a hundred years and the spark of states rights and a brutal war and succession, right? You're speaking for the introduction of something not anywhere in the constitution. I'm unsure why you bring up slavery into the discussion.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

That sounds simple - but wait, what did Massachusetts do? They re-wrote what the word marriage meant. Union of a man and woman? What makes a man, constitutionally speaking? What makes a woman? Why all the language about state or federal law, or even of the constitution? Is it the idea of the framers of this amendment to introduce questionable material for later generations of judges to interpret as they please? Legal incidents thereof? Ahh, look, the court has just determined that bastards are not children anymore.

Judges are not to be trusted.

There is a most true concept. Judges are not to be trusted, judges are there to see to it that the other two branches of government conform to the constitution, it is called balance of power. That balance of power has been upset by horrible judicial legislations. This is supposedly a legislative bullet between the eyes, but to what point? That they can continue making legislative acts and that the other two branches of government accept it and will use their powers of amendment to overturn each and every issue?

The powers need to be reestablished, and if it must be through amendment, amend the constitution to clarify the limitation of judicial fiat. Don't take a single issue, take the whole of the issue.

60% of the population of the United States does not want what Massachusetts' court has legislated, not even the constitutional super majority needed to pass the amendment. I'm not even sure why I'm debating the issue: it has no chance of passing in the majority of states, much less pulling two thirds of the senate.

[hunter112]

All states must share compatible definitions of marriage. There has never been a state which defined marriage in a way that is incompatible with the other states.

States treated interracial marriage differently at one time, and they still treat first cousin marriage differently, with half the states allowing it, and half not. Yes, these might indeed be different things from gay marriage, but it makes your statement above incorrect.

A Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly difficult thing to get, even during the heyday of feminism, the Equal Rights Amendment didn't make it, and even after the outrage over Roe v. Wade, the Human Life Amendment never even made it out of Congress. Most people in the middle are weirded out by gay marriage, but don't agree with you that it will "cause grave disorder throughout the union", any more than they're freaked out by legal prostitution in Nevada or civil union in Vermont. It takes a visceral feeling of injustice to get the supermajority needed to pass an Amendment, and most of the time, even that isn't enough.

[longtermmemmory]

Actually Ohio passed their DOMA and 80% of the senators voted for DOMA. That was with more democrats in the Senate.

It would be suicide for a politician to vote against the FMA. It has a high probability of passing.

In case you missed it:
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

These amendments were not in the constitution until they were put there. It is not a Judges place to legislate marriage from the bench. This has to be stopped because this is the issue on our plate.

[hunter112]

Both of the amendments you cite were used to expand the definition of freedom. Other than the Amendment providing for Prohibition, when has a Constitutional Amendment been used to restrict the freedom of individuals? You can argue that a gay couple living across the street from you with a Massachusetts marriage certificate violates your freedom, but right now, that couple is convincing more people that NOT being able to have the certificate is more violative of their freedom. Either way, you and your spouse will still be married.

[MJY1288]

I know it is a social issue, and every state has every right to decide what relationships are considered legally binding when it comes to "Community Property" and "Individual Property" in a given State. But when a State Court rules on matters concerning "Civil Rights" that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, that's where it becomes a Federal issue. I'm not an Attorney, But my sister is a sitting judge in California and we have discussed this issue at length, and BTW, she is one of the rare Conservative Judges on the left coast.

Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead, because I'm no lawyer, I'm just an old Auto Body Shop Owner/Bodyman and Painter who never paid any attention to legal matters until the 2000 election fiasco :-)

[longtermmemmory]

Interracial marriage is not applicable to homosexuals. Skin color is not at issue for producing children, skin color is not a qualifying of providing a child with a mother and a father.

Homosexuality is a behavior which has never been establish as immutable or obvious. Homosexuality is a private bedroom behavior, homosexual may have a right to boink each other but they have no constitutional right to impose acceptance.

[hunter112]

It would be suicide for a politician to vote against the FMA.

Believe me, most Rats, and a lot of Republicans don't want to vote on this in an election year. There are always ways to bottle this up in committee to avoid having to deal with it until after November. That's my prediction for what will happen with any FMA.

[concerned about politics]

I know it is a social issue, and every state has every right to decide

There's the catch. The states aren't deciding. They being told what they must do by activists on the bench. Not one vote was cast. Not one law written by the legfislature. The unelected judges decided their desires for them. They were literally dictated to by unelected officials.

[kingu]

It is not a Judges place to legislate marriage from the bench. This has to be stopped because this is the issue on our plate.

Put whatever you want after the first part - it is only the first part that matters. Judges do not legislate. They are not allowed to legislate. They are not permitted to legislate. The executive may not legislate. The only body that has the power to legislate is the Congress. In all matters, that is the only issue. That is what needs to be stopped. Anything beyond, in my opinion, is a band-aid.

[longtermmemmory]

It most certainly does. This matter regads how we as a society raise children. Homosexual marriage is about imposing tollerance in the heads of those who do not want to accept homosexual behavior as normal.

you could say the same flawed logic about those who want sex with their dogs or cats, people who want government subidies for their swinger club, or the bondage people, or the polygamy people.

It does not restrict any rights that homosexual have now. You logic is dependant on assuming somehow the law cares about sexual satisfaction or orgasms. Save those for you church, the law only cares about three things.

1. age of consent.
2. not closer related than first cousin.
3. one male and one female (a breeding pair of one mother and one father)

the license is for purposes of probate and part of the public nature of marriage. Marriage is not a private matter, marriage is a public matter.

[hunter112]

Interracial marriage is not applicable to homosexuals.

For those who feel that homosexuality is 100% controllable behavior by 100% of the individuals inclined to engage in it, you're right. For those who either reject that view, or are quite uncertain about it, the parallel between gay marriage and interracial marriage will weigh heavily upon them.

Please remember that we failed to get a Human Life Amendment out of the Congress, the folks in the mushy middle were troubled more by the "rights" of the mother to kill her child than by any possible rights that child might have had to live. The people in the middle seem to be just as convinced that homosexuality is simply "the way some people are" as they are unconvinced that an unborn child is a person with full human rights.

[Don Joe]

I admire the President's unwavering commitment on this, but let's be realistic here. 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.

What are they gonna do, declare a Constitutional Amendment to be "Unconstituional"? ROFL!

A well-crafted amendment will have one of two effects: Either it'll stop 'em cold in their tracks, with no way to weasel out of (or around) it, or, it'll leave them no option but to play their hand, i.e., to defy the Constitution (i.e., the Amendment) in such a blatant manner as to provoke a constutional crisis.

In either case, good for us, n'est ce pas?

If Bush is really gonna commit to this, and see it through, then good for him. It's a good first step.

[concerned about politics]

Homosexual marriage is about imposing tollerance in the heads of those who do not want to accept homosexual behavior as normal.

Forcing people to think contrary to their conscience creates hate.
Hate creates violence.
violence creates war.
The homosexuals are all about their sick sex practices and forcing acceptance of it on everyone else. The rest of the country be damned. They'll dictate from the bench, and you'll obey. That's what their little fantasy world of mental instability tells them is "right."

[longtermmemmory]

The 11th circuit court of appeals rejected the genetic only component of homosexuality when they rejected homosexual efforts to adopt children and overturn a ban under FL law.

Homosexual marriage assumes a mythical genetic homosexuality. If genetic then homosexual behavior has to be tollerated, if selected they it can be rejected. Of course if genetic it can be cured. (watch the homosexuals become anti-abortion then)

Sadly, the FMA is a battle that is better winner than other attemps.

[MJY1288]

I'm not sure about every State, but in my state, the Judges are on the Ballot. You might be thinking of Federal Appeals Court Judges that are appointed by the President to serve on the Circuit Level. (The 9th Circus comes to mind) :-)

[hunter112]

The age limit is not part of the definition of marriage, but simply a regulatory restriction on its application.

So was race, a number of decades ago, and the case that was used by the SCOTUS to overturn bans on interracial marriage involved Virginia citizens who went outside the state to marry, then came back to live as a couple. Gender is being viewed today as a possible "regulatory restriction". This is the argument the pro-gay marriage people are making, and in my opinion, they will be able to keep a supermajority from forming to block gay marriage. At most, the only possible amendment text that could emerge would simply prevent Texas from recognizing a same gender marriage, but not prevent Massachusetts from having them judicially imposed, or even a state from legislating it.

I would prefer to dissolve and treat as null such a legal relationship if it occurs within the borders of my state, not merely prohibit its formation. In this respect, gay marriage is more similar a legal issue to slavery than to miscegenation.

That's an interesting idea, but I wonder what precident the Dred Scott decision would have on this case? As you recall, the SCOTUS upheld the right of the slave holder to compel return of his "property".

The real battle, IMO, is in Congress, where more than 40 Senators believe practicing Catholics shouldn't serve in the judiciary.

I agree, which is why I think the gay marriage issue will be one only of posturing, without any solid action on one side or another. Putting your hopes on Congress to "fix" this is probably hopeless, especially in an election year. There are way too many congresscritters who have districts or states with substantial gay-friendly populations to get the supermajorities needed to get this even out of committee.

[Don Joe]

So Kerry believes that if one state legalizes homosexual marriages, then EVERY state must therefore recognize it as legitimate.

If he's pulling a "full faith and credit" on us for "marriage" licenses, then call him on it. Demand "full faith and credit clause" recognition/reciprocity for CCW licenses issued in any state. Oh, and for every Vermont citizen, too.

For that matter, he should insist that the gov't recognize "Vermont Carry" rules for every citizen of every state, since that's Vermont's rule.

Essentially, everyone has an inherent "CCW License" when visiting Vermont. Unlike Florida, where an out of state visitor has to apply for a non-resident license, Vermont simply says come on in, and carry as you please.

So, since every state would be obligated to honor a Florida (non-resident) license (just as states are obligated to honor other states' non-resident marriage licenses), they should also be obligated to observe Vermont's non-resident CCW "implicit license".

I think there's plenty of stuff there for a good Constitutional lawyer to use to keep 'em in knots for as long as the want to persue that tack (i.e., requiring all states to observe homosexual "marriages" from other states).

It creates a Catch-22 for him. He either insists that the Constitution (i.e., the Full Faith and Credit clause) does apply to licenses, period, or, he casts himself the hypocrite, insisting that it only applies to some licenses.

In the first case, he's entering "never gonna go there" territory. In the second case, he's cutting his own argument off at the knees, because if Full Faith and Credit is not universal -- if it is subjective -- then guess what "license" would top the list of "licenses" that most states would refuse to accept?

Anybody else see the potential here?

[longtermmemmory]

Even so, the odds of finding a conservative judge candidate are low due to the high number of democrats who populate the legal profession.

For state purposes, our state uses a dual system of trial judges being appointed or elected. The appellate judges are reviewed every six years with merrit retention. A simple keep or replace vote. No judge has ever lost merrit retention.