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

[Don Joe]

Some activist judge will find the constitutional convention unconstitutional.

Instant Constitutional Crisis. They don't wanna go there. That land is filled with Executive Orders -- and, with the military, acting under the direction of the Executive.

[Don Joe]

Sorry, you missed one:

Bush on gun control: no mas.

It's more like, "¡Si, si!

He's gone on record as saying he'll sign the AWB back into effect when it expires.

[GregoryFul]

Appears that they can be removed to me according to The MA constitution.

Naa! The MA SC would rule that unconstitutional!

[Technogeeb]

cousinlance has been sent to the big dumpster in the sky

Wrong direction...

[Don Joe]

Good call, and for this marriage amendment they ought to bypass the state Legislatures again using the ratifying convention method.

Not necessarily. If you have a Constitutional Convention, it's all up for grabs.

When they're done, the BoR could be replaced by the "UN Declaraton of Human Rights", with the rest of the new Constitution bearing no resemblance to the one we have now.

Scary stuff.

[longtermmemmory]

Please explain article V.

This is from the Mass constitution:


Chapter III.
JUDICIARY POWER.

Article I. The tenure, that all commission officers shall by law have in their offices, shall be expressed in their respective commissions. All judicial officers, duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior, excepting such concerning whom there is different provision made in this constitution: provided nevertheless, the governor, with consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature. [For tenure, etc., of judges, see Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2 and The Referendum, III, sec. 2.] [For retirement of judicial officers, see Amendments, Art. LVIII.] [For removal of justices of the peace and notaries public, see Amendments, Art. XXXVII.] [Annulled by Amendments, Art. XCVIII.]

Article II. [Each branch of the legislature, as well as the governor and council, shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions.] [Amended and superseded by Amendments, Art. LXXXV.]

Article III. In order that the people may not suffer from the long continuance in place of any justice of the peace, who shall fail of discharging the important duties of his office with ability or fidelity, all commissions of justices of the peace shall expire and become void, in the term of seven years from their respective dates; and upon the expiration of any commission, the same may, if necessary, be renewed, or another person appointed, as shall most conduce to the well-being of the commonwealth. [See Amendments, Art. XXXVII.]

Article IV. The judges of probate of wills, and for granting letters of administration, shall hold their courts at such place or places, on fixed days, as the convenience of the people shall require; and the legislature shall, from time to time, hereafter appoint such times and places; until which appointments, the said courts shall be holden at the times and places which the respective judges shall direct.

Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.

[Don Joe]

I find it funny that these people who ask if he's serious or say that his words are cheap. Seem to jump the gun on the mere speculation of an immigrant program. Some people just thrive off of redmeat I guess.

Don't spin it. It's not "mere speculation on an immigrant program", and you know it. In addition to the amnesty, there's CFR, NEA, and so on, including this that just came down the pike.

I'll grant this is a good start, but he's got to follow it up with action, and somehow counterbalance the rest of the "red meat" he's tossed in the "red" direction. (And I'm not talking red "states" either!)

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate your not wanting me to mention this subject, but both relate to the same resolution. If Bush is going to propose a resolution to a problem, he would be well advised to have honored the document faithfully that he now plans to utilize to his advantage. Otherwise this simply comes off as a manipulation to his advantage.

[hunter112]

11, 13, 14, and 16 clearly restrict the rights of individuals to sue other States in federal court, own slaves, participate in State government if they were involved in the rebellion, and not pay income tax.

We can both agree that many of the Amendments are for "housekeeping" purposes, such as the 25th. I'd submit to you that the 16th was about how the government was allowed to collect taxes, after the SCOTUS had ruled that a graduated income tax was unconstitutional. As such, it was a "housekeeping" measure, no different than if an amendment had been adopted to allow provisions involving taxation to arise in the Senate, rather than the House. The 16th Amendment did not change the basic principle that the government had the power to levy and collect taxes, it only allowed a different form of taxation to be used.

I'll submit to you that the 11th was only a change in judicial rules, that had the power of Constitutional law. Where you can or cannot sue is always a feature of courts, some have only limited impact, in that they are purely local rules, this one simply was raised for some reason to Constitutional status. I don't think it has been a heavy point of controversy in the last couple hundred years.

Yes, the 13th limited one person's rights to own another person. And a Human Life Amendment would eliminate one person's right to kill another, but would be seen by conservatives as an expansion of freedom. Surely, you see the abolition of slavery as a similar expansion of freedom, overall? Citing the 13th as a limitation of individual rights is a bit narrow from our lofty perch here in the 21st Century, isn't it?

Yes, there were provisions in the 14th Amendment that were designed to punish those who took part in the losing side of the Civil War. But that's what the victors get to do in any war. The rest of the text of the 14th was crystal clear in expanding the rights of citizens, and the equal protection and due process clauses in particular were revolutionary in recognizing the rights of individuals. I doubt you'd find a lot of people agreeing with you that the 14th took more freedom than it expanded.

Many of the amendments have been (mis)read to impose further restrictions on individuals.

Granted, this is true. That's why we need to elect Presidents who will appoint judges to become Justices who will defend our freedoms. That's also why Bush will be smart enough to make statements that sound pleasing to a goodly number of people, but will not risk his re-election by overplaying his hand on this issue. Restricting what a State can regulate within its borders is just the kind of overplaying the Rats are counting on from the President, and he won't give it to them.

[Don Joe]

Do Democrats have any morals or standards at all? And, if so, what are they? Please, only serious responses.

Some of the older ones do, and some of the others think they do, i.e., "situation ethics"; the rest of them are basically "me, me, me" hedonists.

[MJY1288]

That could be how it is in my state as well, I simply vote for whoever the conservative leadership in my state recommends :-), Unlike lifetime appointee's to the Bench, at least we can remove them if they need to be :-)

Good Night, & Cheers

Mike

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent!!!

[Don Joe]

This could be good for Bush IF gay marriage becomes a major issue leading up to the election.

What does it say about the country, that in a few short years, we've gotten to a place where the concept of "men marrying men" has leapt from the realm of really bad, sick, twisted "comedy" into the front pages -- and, given not only serious debate, but outright deferential treatment?

The culture slide is astronomical!

[puroresu]

But Hunter, your way of looking at things ends up constantly moving us leftward.

We....and by "we" I mean conservatives.....don't have a pack of ideologically driven cronies sitting on courts. We need public support to get our agenda enacted. The left doesn't, because they have dozens of allies sitting on courts all over the country.

Now, you might be saying, we have some allies, too, such as Scalia and Thomas. Yes, they are great judges, but they are not political or ideological allies. They are thought of as conservative simply because they aren't leftist. Our courts are divided between judges like Margaret Marshall and David Souter, who are willing to use judicial power to impose leftist policies on us, and judges like Scalia and Thomas, who aren't. NOBODY in our court system is trying to impose conservatism on us.

Nor should they, but the point I'm making is that leftist judicial activism is a real phenomenon, and it allows the left to by-pass public opinion in a way that we cannot. There's a mushy, apathetic middle out there on most every issue. That makes it hard to pass either rightist or leftist laws through the legislative process. That may be a problem for both the right and the left, but the left has a trump card. They can often find judges who are willing to simply impose their agenda on us.

Your advice seems to be that conservatives should avoid fighting for conservative social agenda items because we might upset that mushy middle. But fighting is the only option we have. Otherwise, we'll be sitting here in 2024, seventeen years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered gay marriage to be imposed nationwide, and six years after the court legalized multiple-partner marriages, debating how to avoid offending the mushy middle on human-animal sexuality issues currently before the courts.

The ONLY hope we have to save our country, our culture, our values, and our freedom is for someone to stand up and say enough is enough. For someone like President Bush to forcefully defend marriage and to go on TV and explain why traditional marriage is worth protecting.

Not having any clout in the judiciary, we need to sway public opinion by being vocally aggressive and explaining to that mushy middle why gay marriage is wrong. Otherwise, the courts will simply impose gay marriage on us and the media will soldify it with a blitz of pro-gay propaganda.

There seems to be no end to this downward spiral, and you seem to be suggesting that we simply acquiesce in leftist judicial rule rather than risk turning some sheeple off by trying to wake them up. At that rate, it won't be long until you or I could serve prison time for saying homosexuality is a sin. I think you mean well, and I understand the fear of offending others, but for heaven's sake, man....we need to fight back or our nation is as good as dead.

[DoughtyOne]

The topic of this thread was Bush's comments regarding a court ruling on same sex marriage. His suggestion that a Constitutional remedy to this problem might be warranted, struck me rather odd, since he won't defend the nation against invasion, my state in particular. I think it's dead on target to discuss whether Bush has remained faithful to the Constitution he now suggests as a remedy to another problem.

If something as important as the sovereignty of our nation isn't important enough to honor and defend via the Constitution, why should I think he would defend heterosexual marriage via that route? Frankly, I don't have grounds to believe the man.

Isn't that topical? I'm not sure whether you were taking me to task or not. Thanks for the comments.

[MJY1288]

It's not that I didn't want you to mention the subject of immigration, I simply couldn't see the connection between the two issues. GWB did propose a general plan for debate in Congress, but my guess is that it will never reach the floor for debate because of the response that it drew, and the fear that Congress would repeat the mistake made in the 1980's if a worker program was considered.

So I will bet that the "Status Quo" is where things will stay until the need for this issue to be addressed becomes even more crucial for our security. This is an emotional issue and there is no simple answer, the complexity of this issue is immense and we will have to live with the Status Quo

[hunter112]

This matter regards how we as a society raise children.

Well, any version of the FMA is not going to change the fact that gays can adopt in a vast majority of states (47, I believe, when I last counted), and a lesbian couple with a male friend and a turkey baster can have as many kids as they can both pop out, amendment or no amendment. Of course, even if gay marriage is allowed within the borders of Massachusetts, heterosexual people will still be attracted to each other, fall in love, get married, and have babies, just as they do now.

I refuse to get involved with the dog sex or swinger questions, as the President did not comment on those issues (this is not a Rick Santorum thread), and I was wondering if people here at FR thought GWB's intention was to talk about limiting gay marriage to Massachusetts or finding some language that would outlaw it altogether. Each choice has its own political costs, and challenges, and I wonder just how much political capital the President is willing to spend to get just which version of this thing through the process. Giving the Rats their version of illegal immigrant reform seems too high a price to pay to stamp out gay marriage in Massachusetts, rather than just keep Texas from having to tolerate it.

[Don Joe]

Re the urgency, yeah, I was just thinking about that too. Look how long we withstood the efforts to pass the "ERA". Even after we timed it out, they went and gave it an unconsitutional extention!

I would be very surprised if the other side didn't manage to drag this amendment out for the max, I think it's seven years -- and then, of course, deny us an extention ("It's illegal, you know!").

Meanwhile, they'll be working right and left (mainly left) to get state after state to legalize homosexual "marriage", and, getting many many court decisions on their side. (This will have the effect of stifling interest in "rocking the boat" etc. by amending the Constitution.)

We're headed for some rough seas.

[hunter112]

P. S.

Marriage is not a private matter, marriage is a public matter.

Odd as it may seem to you, that statement scares me just a bit.