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.

[expatguy]

bump

[hocndoc]

Just peaking in for a moment and saw this. There is no need to thank me, I should have thanked you since the very act of apology is so rare and precious.
(Thank you bump)

[longtermmemmory]

Have any of the citizens of Mass. filed a formal complaint with the state Bar?

[F16Fighter]

"The rider repeals the sunset of the assault weapons ban making it permanent."

The Kerrys and Feinsteins of the world have declared open season on conservatism -- and the courts still do their bidding. What's up with that??

We are STILL waiting for the Dubyas, Hastaerts, and Frists of the world to hit back HARD with NO mercy and flood the judicial with strong conservatives, and nothing BUT. Dubya's got to get up on the Presidential soap box and expose Kerry and his cohorts for what they are -- when will he give up on "winning" them over? Bury the SOBs.

This Cultural WoT is arguably more important to win than is the WoT against the IslamoFascists.

[tuesday afternoon]

In other words, the various branches of state government there appear to be conspiring against the people.

What in the world is going on in Massachusetts?

[tuesday afternoon]

I believe in Canada a man and a newspaper were both fined for running an ad which expressed Biblical opposition to homosexuality.

This post discusses that case and others: The Death of Canadian Democracy and the Birth of Judicial Unilateralism

In Sweden, public opposition to homosexuality is now punishable by prison time.

That I hadn't heard.

[Ol' Sparky]

The President must certainly can use the bully pulpit to encourage Congress to get the ammendment process going. If he can twist Republican arms to get his socialist spending programs, through, he can do the same on this issue.

[tuesday afternoon]

Doesn't Pres. Bush's statement - that the only alternative is an amendment - imply that the state and federal DOMAs will not stand up to judicial review?

[puroresu]

Thanks for that link. Below is a link to an article that mentions the Swedish situation, along with a quote:

#####Unfortunately, Britain isn’t the only place where thought police are on the prowl. Sweden’s parliament has passed a constitutional amendment banning speech critical of homosexuality. Offenders can wind up with lengthy prison terms. This is being done, of course, in the name of “diversity” -- although, alas, that lofty ideal apparently doesn’t extend to the marketplace of ideas.#####


http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED112702b.cfm

[Jorge]

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?

To tell you the truth I'm surprised it's taken so long.

And I'm encouraged to see that the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

[Jim Noble]

Doesn't Pres. Bush's statement - that the only alternative is an amendment - imply that the state and federal DOMAs will not stand up to judicial review?

Yes, it does, and no, they won't.

[PhilDragoo]

Kerry limp-wristed vis-a-vis Franken-Frank nuptials.

[hunter112]

He is advocating a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman.

Stirring words you quote from the President, but I think anybody can find what they want in them. Surely, "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard," means different things to different people. Here's what I hear:

"...that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

That doesn't call specifically for an amendment that completely bans any legislated (or judicially mandated) incidence of gay marriage in any of the individual states, it only calls for language that does not allow gay marriage to be transported from state to state by the FF&C provisions of the Constitution.

The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

That dignity and value would surely include the right to enter into voluntary contracts. Marriage for gays may be off limits in the President's eyes, but what about civil unions? His words can be interpreted to allow Vermont-style unions, as well as the domestic partnerships that California and New Jersey have adopted that are essentially the same thing.

Don't claim later that you were lied to when the President appears to be backing off of his statement from the other day, he's left himself a lot of wiggle room on this. I'm glad that he seems to be playing this issue fairly smart.

[breakem]

Your posts just keep getting more idiotic. Stay away from my family and we do not welcome the prayers of a fool.

[MEG33]

I may have missed an update..but how is your wife?

MEG

[Grampa Dave]

Good luck to your wife and you!

That is scary.

[joyce11111]

bump for tommorrow