President calls gay 'marriage' ruling 'troubling'

Washington Times ^ | 2/05/04 | James G. Lakely

[kattracks]

President Bush yesterday said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on homosexual "marriage" was "deeply troubling," and he chided "activist judges" who seek to "redefine marriage by court order."

"He believes it's an issue of great consequence," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday. "That's why he said [in last month's State of the Union address] that the people's voice must be heard."

[Las Vegas Dave]

Butt buddies united in wedlock, AMAZING!

[alloysteel]

There should be at least two different levels of contractual agreement for people who choose to take up living together. One would be a level of marriage, between two people who are interested in a lifetime commitment, an exclusive dyad, and the other at the level of a civil union, which may be dissolved at the request of either, or a simple mutual agreement. The grounds for dissolution of the more formal level would have to be set quite high, which should be making many more people much more cautious about entering into a binding agreement.

The traditional concept of marriage has become much too casual, and the vows exchanged are far more honored in the breach than in the fulfillment. It is far too easy to slip into this traditional form, then turn to regret and acting out as a form of protest. A simpler ceremony, allowing the pair to play house until they tired of the arrangement, would provide a safety valve for the restless and uncommitted, and at the same time, not impinge upon the formal declaration of lifelong fidelity and mutual interdependence.

[Cindy]

Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6

WorldNetDaily.com: "IT'S 'GAY' MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: ""It seems the more people consider the long-term impact of homosexual marriage on the family and society, the more they oppose homosexual marriage," said Ron Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a non-partisan state and nationwide alliance of supporters of traditional marriage.") (February 4, 2004) (Read More...)

[maica]

I saw Bawney Fwank on TV last night, really agitated, in defence of the Mass judicial decision - saying that it is up to the states to decide such things. He was extremely insulting to his counterpart guest. However last year when some citizens did not like a law in Texas against sodomy, the Supreme court ruled that Texas did NOT have the right to make their own law.

The only redeeming feature that I see in this event is that Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts. Perhaps it will make a few more voters decide to keep GWB in the White House.

[tbpiper]

A simpler ceremony, allowing the pair to play house until they tired of the arrangement, would provide a safety valve for the restless and uncommitted,

An elegantly stated version of 'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?'.

[capt. norm]

It should be obvious that one can readily identify the sex of a newborn and I've never envisioned an obstetrician coming out of the delivery room saying "Congratulations....it's a homosexual."

Seems like most of them become homosexuals after failing at being heterosexual.

[Living Free in NH]

Believe it or not, a vast majority of the folks in Mass, and the Mass. legislature are very much against the idea of queers getting married. But changing the state's constitution isn't possible until 2006 so there seems to be no way of avoiding the notion of this actually happening. But I have an idea that I wonder if anyone's considered: What if the state decided to refuse to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE until 2006. I would think that marriage licenses issued by any other state could be recognized for a marriage ceremony within the state's borders.

The court's decision doesn't take effect until May 2004, so there's time to come up with something...anything.

[apillar]

I think this issue will be the one the guarantees president Bush gets reelected and Republicans make gains in the congress.

I think Kerry or the eventual democrat nominee is going to lose a lot of the union rank and file over this issue and it will bring the "moral majority" out to the polls in droves.

[ClearCase_guy]

There should be at least two different levels of contractual agreement for people who choose to take up living together

Gresham's Law: Good money drives out bad money.

With two levels of "marriage" available, you pretty much guarantee that an ever-declining percentage of couples will choose the "life-time commitment" option. Is it your intention to eradicate that type of marriage? If not, you should not be advocating for the existence of a "lesser" variety of marriage.

[BigWaveBetty]

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. Complete story

[Glenn]

I hate to break the bad news, but this won't be undone. 60% is not 2/3. Their activists are more energetic than our activists, who are forced to carry guilt over their homophobia. Short of revolution, this matter is completed.

[Arthur McGowan]

Why is the judicial imposition of a new definition of marriage a more urgent, troubling matter than the judicial imposition of baby-murder? I have an answer: We haven't become used to gay marriage yet. Once it's been around for about a year, it will settle down, like abortion, as the concern exclusively of "the extreme right wing."

[garylmoore]

President Bush yesterday said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on homosexual "marriage" was "deeply troubling," and he chided "activist judges" who seek to "redefine marriage by court order."

God bless our President for taking a moral stand on this issue.

[sirhoff]

I ask fellow freepers this question. What is the down-deep base reason to oppose gay marriage?

I have trouble understanding the reasoning and no one presents substantial explanation. What do 66% of America think?

I refuse to believe that it is:

- religious fundamentalism as that is not what our country should be basing law after.

- gay prejudice because I have more faith in our country and our leaders to believe that they could condone such deplorable practice.

- that gays can't effectively raise children? Because that is just absurd. Even if someone believes that no evidence exists to support such a claim.

I feel it must not be a "gay" issue. Does the Government not want to extend the benefits? Or is it an effort to protect the God given inalienable rights. Nature dictates that a man and a woman produce children and it is not the US government's position to make law that challenges "Gods law."

[StonyBurk]

We have neglected the very principles upon which this nation
was established. Ignorant of both the language and intent
our youth are NOT taught to be Americans--but to be the
pack mules and fodder in that salad bowl prepared for
global consumption. Your response --of a two tiered resolution may be a diplomatic attempt to give something to
all--but is still contrary to what was established. Either
we are yet that nation established a Christian nation in
1776--or we are NOT.And if not we ought divest ourselves of
any pretence to be bound by the Constitution established.

[sasafras]

I am sure Bush will do nothing. He likes to talk the talk on domestic issues. I hope he starts to stand for something that conservatives can back him on.

[sirhoff]

"Either we are yet that nation established a Christian nation in 1776--or we are NOT"

Is it me or was the "God" our nation was founded on a catch-all term to represent a creator of all things, a higher knowledge that we as humans can't comprehend? God is not religion-specific. The inalienable rights given to us are basic human rights that the US gov't seeks to protect by law and doesn't have the authority to dictate.

[jwalsh07]

The time to act is now Mr President. Procrastination and legislative and ludicial mischief in Mass made homosexual marriage a fait accompli.

Get off the pot!!!!!!!!

[Minuteman23]

I second that! And he's running out of time to change his stripes back to conservative ones.