Republican House Members Lukewarm on Marriage Ammendment?

The Associated Press | 2/24/04 | Deb Riechmann

[Ol' Sparky]

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON - Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage _ a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Bush, who has cast himself as a "compassionate conservative," left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.

Bush noted actions in Massachusetts where four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses, to people of the same sex. This, Bush said, is contrary to state law. A county in New Mexico also has issued same-sex marriage licenses, Bush said.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials _ all of which adds to uncertainty," Bush said.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest."

However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary."

Lewis said, "At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue."

The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by recent rulings on the issue, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.

[cripplecreek]

"At this moment I feel changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue."


Very wise words. I don't want legal gay marriage but i refuse to jump on board with an amendment so easily. Nothing would make democrats happier. It opens the door for the amendments they want. Little things like gun control, presidential term limits, and dumping the electoral college.

Personally i have my doubts that the president expects an amendment to get off the ground. He has started to define his position.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Republican House Members Lukewarm on Marriage Ammendment

Demonstrably proving, once again, that GWB is actually more conservative than the rank-and-file Republicans in the House...

[ElkGroveDan]

Dreier makes me sick. He's a RINO in elephant clothing.

[DustyMoment]

Lessee, now, Bush can support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage; he can encourage more illegal Mexicans to overwhelm the border in hopes of getting amnesty; he can give the UN $1.5 Bn of OUR tax dollars to refurbish their decaying, corrupt facility; he can spend more money on the NEA; but he can't see his way clear to vetoing a single spending bill or sticking by his promise to veto CFR or actually lobbying the Senate to apply pressure for his judicial nominees or fight for his Social Security plan.

It sounds like he has some issues with priorities.

[jwalsh07]

Call Tom Delay and turn up the heat.


Washington DC Office
242 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Ph. (202) 225-5951
Fax (202) 225-5241

District Office
10701 Corporate Drive, Suite 118
Stafford, TX 77477
Ph. (281) 240-3700
Fax (281) 240-2959

[Unam Sanctam]

No amendment, judicially imposed gay marriage. If you don't see it coming, you're blind as a bat. There is no way to stop the power of the judiciary without an amendment.

[dr_who_2]

The "should it be an amendment?" issue is not much of a problem to me. If questions like that aren't settled by politicians, the activist groups, lawyers, and judges decide (often contrary to what the majority of voters think). As long as he's consistent with social issues, he can make voters think twice about a Kerry presidency. What bugs me is that it seems like this is Bush's "panic button". What's more, he hasn't really made the makeup of the courts an issue. As for the rest of his domestic policy, the only direction his administration seems to be taking is towards more government; his tactics seem to be to embrace the Democrat agenda to take away their issues and to increase the size of the bureaucracy in order to make it more friendly to the right or Republicans. If Congressional Republicans don't make this amendment a campaign issue, it will disappear methinks, and then what will Bush do after that?

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

This is Just Tom Delay putting it off for a month or two so it's carried into the election year.

This issue can cost Kerry the Presidency, the Rats about 10 house seats or more, 3-5 Senate seats, and innumerable state hose chambers.

[whadizit]

If Constitution is amended, won't the same activist judges continue to do what they want to do. IMO, we fail big time by not arresting the mayors and those who are flagrantly defying their state laws. Constitution is NOT a dumping spot for those who are TOO COWARDLY to handle it locally.

[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.

[Paleo Conservative]

However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary

I think Jerry Lewis has spent too much time in France.

[Paleo Conservative]

However, California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary

I think Jerry Lewis has spent too much time in France.

[PLK]

Perhaps someone on FR can clarify this for me: what does a civil union NOT provide that gays are seeking in the "marriage" designation?

It confuses me. Is it because the terminology of some legal contracts, i.e. insurance, wills, etc., use "marriage" as a legal term?

[freedumb2003]

If Constitution is amended, won't the same activist judges continue to do what they want to do

Ain't that the truth --- look at what they do now whenever the Constitution is prima facie in conflict:

• I vs V - V wins
• I vs Anything the Left Supports - I wins
• I vs Any Traditional Value - I loses
• II vs Anything - II loses
• X vs Anything -- X loses

A new Amendment will be ignored by the Legislating Judiciary the same as II and X, but who will uphold the Full Faith & Credit Clause (selectvely) to achieve their Liberal ends!

[sarasmom]

Who about an ammendment to stop an activist judicial branch from usurping legislative powers?

That makes more sense to me.

Unless we also have to pass ammendments stating the nature of gravity, the color of the sky, and that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

Vote every judge out of office, everytime, every chance you get.

[dufekin]

IMPEACH the judges who obviously don't know anything about either (1) the dictionary; (2) the English language; (3) the law; (4) precedent; (5) the Constitution as it stands now; (6) human civilization; (7) history; or (8) reproductive biology.

They're undeniably grossly incompetent, illiterate social pestilences who do not deserve the jobs that they hold.

Even if we do pass a marriage amendment, what is to keep one of these judges from deciding that the definition of a "male" and a "female" is an "evolving paradigm," or that it's too "vague" to determine what its authors meant, or any such gobbledygook one would not expect even from a nincompoop? Nothing, nothing at all. It's just one more hurdle for liberal activist judges to whine about--or use to authorize themselves to decree legislation as they see fit. And that's legislation without any power of veto or legitimate objection; no one can boot the official who made the law--unless we impeach these officials NOW.

So I say, let's impeach, convict, and remove the liberal activist judges for gross incompetence, Constitutional ignorance, lunatic insanity, and sheer recklessness--or whatever grounds we can find--and replace them with just any old sane clear-thinking people (perhaps like Miguel Estrada). And we can leave our Constitution alone.

Massachusetts...how do we remove a judge in Boston? Someone tell me please--then let's do it!

[Amerigomag]

There is no way to stop the power of the judiciary without an amendment.

Wrong.

You simply ignore them. The judiciary has neither a standing army, nor the power to tax. They have no way to enforce their decisions.

At least one US president simply ignored them.

[calcowgirl]

Perhaps someone on FR can clarify this for me: what does a civil union NOT provide that gays are seeking in the "marriage" designation?

VALIDATION! IMO, they won't be satisfied until they think that they are totally accepted in society. We've gone from being "tolerant" to having "gay pride" celebrations, then to "domestic partnerships"... but they're still not happy.

Under the recently passed domestic partnership legislation in California, they have every single right that married people have (with the exception of those only the Federal Government can grant, i.e. IRS-Tax Status, Immigration, Soc Security, other?).

Even before that legislation, they were able to achieve by contractual arrangement the majority of things you hear them complain about, e.g. hospital visitation, property transfers, etc.

I never followed this subject before the past few weeks, but if you find the threads with keyword "homosexualagenda", you'll find more info than one can absorb!