Bush Backs Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

NewsMax.com ^ | 2-24-04 | NewsMax Wires, AP

[codercpc]

I think we agree 100%, I just didn't make myself clear (happens all the time:> )

I was trying to say that Kerry's answer about it being left up to the States isn't possible, unless the Federal Government says the states (which must be done via an Amendment) individually can define it, but that other states, and the Federal Government does not have to recognize it.

I am for the Amendment for this reason, I don't want Massachusetts to tell Wisconsin (my State) that a Gay Marriage performed there has to be recognized here.

[Schattie]

The specific clause in mind is:

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

See to me, the second part of that implies that Congress may regulate how "full faith and credit" is implemented.

[DMZFrank]

This amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[ohioWfan]

Bush favors civil unions.

Please cite a source for this opinion.

Today he said that what to do about civil unions should be left up to the states.......and I have never heard or read that he 'favors' them.

Except of course from people who don't like him here on FR......

[txrangerette]

He has said that, if still Gov.
of TX, he would oppose them. But
won't try to outlaw the various
paths states might take on it.
Scott McClellan dealt with that
today. W's definition of marriage
rules his thinking - a sacred
institution of long history that
is between a man & a woman.

THAT'S what he's guarding. Civil
unions seem like a different case
to him.

Incorrect to say he favors them

[ohioWfan]

Incorrect to say he favors them

That's what I thought, because I've been paying close attention, and I'd never heard him say that.

Amazing how freely those who don't like him cite misinformation as fact.

In my book, it's the same as a lie.

[applemac_g4]

The only "lie" is using the weak semantic cop-out that the President is using on this issue. Whether you 'favor' them or just can't be bothered with 'opposing' them, the end result is the same.

And this still doesn't address the issue of what we've gained by defining marriage as between a man and a woman and giving orcs the same benefits under the title 'civil unions'...besides play a word game.

[ohioWfan]

It's not a word game. It's what he, as President can do to prevent the erosion of morals in America, and protect marriage.

He doesn't 'favor' civil unions. He is a moral, Christian heterosexual, happily married man.

He is allowing the states to make their own decisions, and not getting it involved in a federal process (marriage, because it is a longstanding legal institution, and because of the state to state recognition of it, is already there).

Many here on this forum want him to leave the entire homosexual marriage issue to the states. Do they 'favor' it? Most likely not. They just want the states to decide.

Your statement that the President 'favors' (i.e. supports) civil unions was a deliberate attempt to mislead, which is why I asked you to back it up.

You can't, because it's not true, so you played 'word games' to get out of your lie.

[antiRepublicrat]

The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

There must be a better solution. We can't keep playing whack-a-mole with activist judges every time they play legislator (oooh, picture that, 9th Circuit, all behind the bench, a foam rubber hammer...). We need a system in place that recognizes consistent efforts to legislate from the bench and removes those judges. But we still need to keep the judges from becoming succeptible to threats and undue influence from the other branches.

[sportscaster]

Can we get a CBO score on what gay marriage would COST the treasury. I am not sure the government can afford the cost of adding to the roll of married tax benafactors.
Yep gay marriage (as tax cuts in general ...forgetting for purpose of this argument that tax cuts always have INCREASED receipts)
How much faster would social security go broke by adding all these new couples to the benefit rolls.
Gay marriage----we just can't afford it.

[tangerine]

It's pretty easy to figure out the cost. Assume homosexuals are 2-3% of the population.
Cut that in half because it takes 2 to marry. Cut that in half (at least) again because
no more of the homosexual group wants to get married or will be married than the hetrosexuals amongst us.

So what do you have - maybe 1/2 of 1% of the population as an increase. Thus a 1/2 of 1% (.005) increase in the cost at maximum.

[jwalsh07]

Think again, if civil unions and homosexual "marriage" are not stooped at the door, I'll be marrying the person of my choice to pass on my SS survivors benefits to when I check out. And if you think I'll be alone you better think again.

[antiRepublicrat]

Gay marriage----we just can't afford it.

That means we could just eliminate marriage and save the treasury a bundle!

[tangerine]

Be my guest. If that person is a US citizen, most likely that person has a) SS benefits of his or her own or else b) is on welfare.

[jwalsh07]

Be my guest.

LOL, count on it.

[Mich0127]

I totally agree. WE should not have to resort to a Constitutional amendment.
If these judges want to force their tyrannical opinions on us, maybe they should move to North Korea or Cuba, or even Red China

Our forefathers must be rolling in their graves!

[Mich0127]

While I agree with you, I can't really think of a better solution. These judges don't listen to anything anyway.

Maybe force them to resign?

[antiRepublicrat]

While I agree with you, I can't really think of a better solution.

Maybe a rotating judicial review board (like Senate seats but yearly) of randomly picked judges and others with law knowledge. Upon receiving a complaint, a random subset of the panel would be picked which could could censure any judge at any time for any obviously activist decision, but with no actual punishment. Any judge censured by three different panels (meaning those from the first censure panel are at best a minority) could be kicked out.

It would take three years to remove a judge, but it would keep the judiciary free from political reprisal for decisions as it's supposed to be.

[Mich0127]

That is a good solution. I would suggest writing a letter to the president and your senators. See what happens!

[antiRepublicrat]

That is a good solution. I would suggest writing a letter to the president and your senators. See what happens!

It would probably be found unconstitutional by the very judges it's supposed to keep in check. Depressing.