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.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the additional comments. Take care.

[MJY1288]

You too buddy,

Good Night

[jmstein7]

Help Get The Word Out: CLINTON Caused the Recession that Cost America 3M Jobs! (click here)

[jmstein7]

Help Get The Word Out: CLINTON Caused the Recession that Cost America 3M Jobs! (click here)

[Don Joe]

I wasn't talking about Maryland's right to legislate about marriage. I was talking about the court ordering their legislature to pass laws that are written as dictated by the court. They are far outside their authority.

I thought about that too, but then, our legislators are largely geldings anyway, trained to pass laws "as required" by various treaties. (Yes, I know I'm mixing federal and state, but I don't think there's much of a different mindset between the two.)

In a perfect world -- or even a moderately reasonable world -- a legislature, when ordered to vote in a certain way, would reply with a collective "Make me!" -- and then pass the laws they deemed appropriate, regardless of any bullying by the court.

In essence, the court is saying, "We can't find any way to interpret the law to deliver the results we want, so, we're simply going to demand that the legislature remold the law to match the interpretation we want it to have."

"Outrage" is not nearly sufficient a word to describe the process, and "gutless" doesn't even approach an accurate term for a legislature that would comply with the demand.

[longtermmemmory]

It should not. Marriage has always been public. Marriages have always been some form of ritual where the friends of the birde and groom are invited to witness their formation of a family unit. etc. etc.

[hunter112]

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.

OK, but that's just one circuit. What do you think the 9th Circuit would say? Two or more circuits disagree, and the issue winds up in front of the SCOTUS. Maybe there will be a FMA in place by that time, but I doubt it.

If genetic then homosexual behavior has to be tolerated, if selected they it can be rejected. Of course if genetic it can be cured.

Or, perhaps the courts will rule that free association is the principle to apply. Religion is not genetic, and the freedom of association is used to exclude nonbelievers from employment with religious organizations.

Your comments regarding abortion as a potential "cure" for genetically founded homosexuality, if such is the case, raises an interesting question. If it is scientifically proved someday that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (perhaps involving recessive genes, the most likely way that genetic homosexuality would be "selected for"), and a Christian couple knew their unborn child carried these genes, what would they do? If they have the child, and attempt to raise the child as heterosexual, would they disown the child if they were unsuccessful?

[longtermmemmory]

Homosexuals adoptions are irrelevant. The way they legally game the system is to have one homosexual adopt the child and then give guardianship to the second homosexual.

There is no constitutional right to adopt. Just ask the 11th circuit which adopted the "courts are not a superlegislature" reasoning of the 4th circuit.

Love has nothing to do with this issue. Love is a red herring to the law. It will however affect how parents raise their children. Will homosexuals tollerate parents teaching their children homosexuallity is wrong, a sickness, or just plain disgusting? or will they impose thought crime laws.

news flash on immigration. Immigration lawyers already have pretty much obliterated the borders. If you don't believe me, go to the conference at the Hyatt in miami later this month and find out for yourself. There is very little to give that they do not allready have. (amnesty has always been here. It was the republicans who were able to force clinton to up the 6 year roling amnesty to 10 years.)

This is a choose your battle situation. You have to eat the pizza one slice at a time.

[thoughtomator]

Wait 'till the immigrant visa applications based on gay marriages to US citizens come rolling in! Barrels of laughs, that's going to be.

[hunter112]

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.

Is asking the President to limit his FMA to keep gay marriage within Massachusetts acquiescing? I'm sorry, but I consider MA too far gone down this path to expend the political capital to drag it back into the 20th Century on this. If the citizens of that Commonwealth want to get rid of gay marriage, they have a remedy under their Constitution, and if the President wishes to contain this to Massachusetts until they can, then he can try that, and see how it flies. Or, at least pay lip service to it, which is all I suspect this is.

At that rate, it won't be long until you or I could serve prison time for saying homosexuality is a sin.

Y'know, I keep getting batted down on my comparisons to interracial marriage, but deep inside of the posters who argue with me, I see the fear that it will be socially unacceptable to make a "fag" joke as it is today to make a racial slur. I don't know anybody who is in jail for making a "nigger" joke, and I only have heard about people being discriminated against for being public with racist sentiments (and anti-homosexuality ones) at work. At work, we need to get along with other people, and that includes the boss's obnoxious relatives who get hired there, too.

I'm not afraid of being put in jail for believing that an unborn human being is a person, I rather doubt that anyone will be put in jail for possessing a version of the Bible that still contains verses about homosexuality, either.

[longtermmemmory]

that is probably going to be a topic at the miami immigration congerence under the recent developments. Mass will immediatly cause a FFC crisis.

Using an immigration law challenge they can federally impose mass homosexual marriage and take out all state doma's with one shot.

[longtermmemmory]

actually the FMA will negate mass. homosexual marriage. It will not stop homosexual unions but it will take then out of all federal law. Immigration comes to mind first. Under immigration law, a US citizen automatically can apply and get permanent status for someone they married in the usa(unless here under a waiver program.) and they automatically get a fiance visa to bring in a person TO marry. Make no mistake it is a very crucial issue to keep homosexual marriage out of federal laws.

[hunter112]

It should not. Marriage has always been public.

I guess my discomfort involves just how far that public gets to peer into my bedroom doorway. That's how we got the SCOTUS decisions that created privacy (contraception bans for married couples in CT) and legalized homosexual sex (Lawrence v. Texas). Push the society hard enough on things that are best left private, and just watch the counter-reaction.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the clarification.

[longtermmemmory]

Marriage the institution and private sex in the bedroom are two seperate issues. The contraceptive cases were decided on privacy grounds. (they were the set up for abortion)

[Kryptonite]

The 9th Circuit also ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Yesterday's *ruling* adds to the fact that this election really is all about the courts.

Consider the line in the sand the Demonrat Senators drew with their unprecedented filibusters, and look at what has happened in recent history.

Kerry's home state robes are stirring the pot in a spectacular fashion, and together with the 9th Circuit's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, prove beyond all doubt that the most damage being done to this country is coming from the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch.

The #1 most effective cure is to vote Bush.

[KQQL]

Monsieur Jean "Bring It On" Kerry

Measure Number: H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism.
SC Dem Debate 01/29/04

Kerry opposed the death penalty until 2002 , voted against military action in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and voted to freeze defense spending.

Bank records would later show that Kerry's Chinese campaign cash came from $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent to Chung on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence, Newsweek reports.
NewsMax 02/02/04

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday said Pope John Paul II ``crossed the line'' by instructing pols to block legalization of gay marriage.
Boston Herald 08/02/03

During the height of the Cold War, Kerry opposed the entire strategic modernization effort proposed by President Reagan — the Peacekeeper, B-1 and B-2 bombers, the Trident submarine and D-5 missile, opposed the non-strategic modernization of the defense budget as well, and the deployment of the INF missiles in Europe.
Washington Times 01/04