Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)

The White House ^ | Nov 18, 2003 | President Bush

[PhiKapMom]

Statement by the President On Marriage

November 18, 2003

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

[Kuksool]

Thanks to the Kennedy Supreme Court, gay marriage shall be a revelant issue for the 2004 elections. It could help GOP Senate candidates in the South. If the RATS wish to demagogue about textile job losses in the Carolinas, the Republicans could then counteract by forcing the RATS to make a stand on gay marriage.

[Wolfstar]

"Private sector" means exactly what it says. The government does not have to license marriages in order for — as you put it — property ownership and its orderly transfer to occur. As many others on this thread have already pointed out, the purpose of marriage was and is to protect children, mostly, but also women. Until the very recent availability of DNA analysis, marriage and at least the prospect of monogomy was the only way a man could have some guarantee that he was, in fact, the father of the children to whom his wife gave birth. Inheritance laws and customs developed on that basis.

I don't know when government got into the business of licensing marriages, but I'd wager it was in relatively recent times — perhaps the mid-to-late part of the 19th century. Before then, most marriages in most societies were based in religious and cultural traditions, i.e., the private sector.

[armadale]

How many HETEROSEXUAL people today really think that Marriage is a sacred institution?

Newt Gingrich?

Let's stop throwing stones.

[maica]

I think the word 'sanctity' is used to elevate concept of the 'union' of one man and one woman to a new entity. You might say that marriages are 'blessed' by the community in which the two entrants live. This has been the custom in every successful society.

[Chad Fairbanks]

STATEMENT BY CHAD FAIRBANKS, SOME GUY.

"Democrats are great big doody-heads."

[William McKinley]

Realizing that people of all stripes fail to live up to our ideals is not a reason to throw out those ideals.

[Wolfstar]

So why have I heard so many people, during the debates over same-sex marriage, claim that marriage is a religious institution?

Because for much of human history, in most societies, marriages were made via religious ceremonies, not civil servants!

[spodefly]

I have some mixed emotions here.

As anyone that has read my posts here can see, I am about as right-wing as can be. I am not a "fiscal Conservative/social liberal" type at all. Conservative. Period.

But ... my aunt, who recently passed away, had lived with her partner for 40 years. I consider them both to be my aunts. They have never made any comments regarding their sexuality or any comments related to the homosexual agenda. They were obviously just 2 people that had a committed relationship that lasted longer than the vast majority of marriages. And I love them both equally. As repulsed as I am by homosexuality in general, I never once felt that when thinking about my aunts. Their relationship was as natural and mutually rewarding as any I have ever seen.

Because there are no provisions for accomodating same-sex union (in a legal sense) in NC, the estate of my aunt, which should rightfully transfer to my 'other aunt' in accordance with their lifelong committment, now gets to be eaten up by the state with the leftovers given to my 'other aunt' afterwards, and naturally, I am never happy about the state collecting some huge percentage of the product of someone's lifetime of work.

So ... I'm conflicted.

No way should 'Marriage' be between same sex partners ... that is not what marriage is intended to be, and it is not what it has been for several thousand years. But then what is the difference between 'same-sex' unions, and marriage if the legal aspects are exactly the same, as I believe they should be? Semantics? A distinction without a difference?

[COURAGE]

A D.U. ALERT!!
armadale
Since Nov 11, 2003

[jwalsh07]

Because there are no provisions for accomodating same-sex union (in a legal sense) in NC, the estate of my aunt, which should rightfully transfer to my 'other aunt' in accordance with their lifelong committment, now gets to be eaten up by the state with the leftovers given to my 'other aunt' afterwards, and naturally, I am never happy about the state collecting some huge percentage of the product of someone's lifetime of work.

I don't want to seem like I am denigrating you, your Aunt or her friend but there is no law in any state of the union preventing the drawing of wills and contracts. Why didn't your Aunt draw a will?

[COURAGE]

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck.....IT'S A DUCK!!!

[longtermmemmory]

Which is why homosexual civil unions should be just as invalid.

Marriage is not about you sexual behavior in the bedroom. (see no fault divorce) It is about how you raise children produced NATURALLY. Any one exception is not relevant. Homosexuals are fond of pointing to infertile couples or couples that do not want children.

A cohabitation agreement entered into by any homosexual couple is enforcable as a contract in any state.

Giving civil unions the exact same gov. status as a marriage is just a sucker game on conservatives. The leftists and homosexuals are just playing word games. Marriage regardless of what it is called must remain distict from homosexual "unions". I say every freeper is entitled to use the title "Doctor" in front of their names. It is a matter of fairness since people of free republic have a higher sense of awareness.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

I thank God that we have him as our President.

I can't help but think of how Clinton would have commented on this issue. I came up with a phrase for Clinton and Bush, to contrast their leadership style:

Bill Clinton -- playing to the lowest common denominator.
George W. Bush -- taking a stand for the greatest common good.

The distinction is subtle, but important, and likely lost on liberals.

[Wolfstar]

With all gentle and due respect to your aunts and yourself, it would seem to me that each aunt should have made a will or living trust, or other legal instrument leaving her estate to whomever she chose. If your deceased aunt did leave a will or other such legal instrument, what bars it from being duly carried out?

[Republicus2001]

also Bush hates Native Americans. That's why he made sure the Chiefs lost to Cincinnati before he left for the UK.

It's the idiot Bush's fault!

[longtermmemmory]

which also means that every state that still has common law marriage will have to eliminate it to avoid accidental/fraudulent marriages by roommates. (ie would a poor college room mate claim to have "same sex common law married" a rich room mate to gain access to money which would set them up for life? People will do a lot for money.)

[COURAGE]

In most of history, the religious and the civil ceremonies of all types were consider the same. Know your history!

[deport]

There was a divorce granted to a couple that had one of the Vermont Civil Unions by a Texas Judge in March of 03. The Texas AG Gregg Abbott asked Judge Mulvaney to set aside his ruling because Texas law does not provide for civil union dissolution and divorces cannot be granted to same sex couples. “Because these two men were never married under either Vermont or Texas law, they cannot legally petition for divorce under the Texas Family Code,” he said. “The court’s final decree of divorce is void as a matter of law.”

Mulvaney’s original decision was based primarily on the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which requires states to honor marriages performed in any other state, among other legal certifications.

A bit more about the Vermont Civil Union.....

Town clerks issue civil union licenses. After a judge, justice of the peace, or member of the clergy certifies the union, couples are entitled to more than 300 state provided benefits including hospital visitation, victim’s compensation rights, inheritance rights, family leave benefits, adoption, public assistance, state tax benefits, and marital communication privileges. The law does not apply to federal benefits like Social Security.

According the to Vermont Health Department 5,405 couples have been joined in civil union since the landmark law went into effect two years ago. Of those couples, 4,585 were from outside Vermont.

[Note: you can get a dissolution in Vermont but it requires residency which takes 6 months]

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck.....IT'S A DUCK!!!

Or Al Franken.

[spodefly]

She had a will, and I am sure her estate was pretty carefully crafted to minimize any grabs by the state. But, because the laws are designed to handle transfers from married couples and not non-married persons, there is a huge hit (so far as I understand it.)

It's not just the estate and the handling of the inheritence though ... their committment was real. It was not allowed by law to be seen that way. That's the part that I have problems with.