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.

[B Knotts]

To me, just sitting on our hands while our entire culture is destroyed is not a reasonable option.

[B Knotts]

Also, I disagree that passing a Constitutional amendment is "federalizing" marriage. It's simply defining it.

[Protagoras]

To me, just sitting on our hands while our entire culture is destroyed is not a reasonable option.

Then don't just sit on your hands. That would be your choice.

To suggest that anything other than federalizing the problem is sitting on one's hands is quite spurious.

[Protagoras]

Also, I disagree that passing a Constitutional amendment is "federalizing" marriage. It's simply defining it.

On the federal level. That's federalizing it.

If you want to make a case for a STATE constitutional amendent, I'm with you.

[B Knotts]

The other option would be to work at the state level; I agree. However, because of the judicial tyranny we now live under, that won't work.

If they outlaw it in Mass., they will find another state, and they will convince the court to enforce "full faith & credit" to "federalize" gay marriage. SCOTUS will ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, as it is mere legislation vs. "full faith & credit" which is in the Constitution.

You don't take a knife to a gunfight.

[Protagoras]

We simply disagree. And if you look at the history of amendments you will see the law of unintended consequences applies.

We need less federal control, not more.

And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.

Then states can do what they want and suffer or enjoy the consequences.

[B Knotts]

And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.

I could go along with that. That could even be the Marriage Amendment.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I forgot to mention Jack Ryan of Illinois as another example of a pro-life conservative we should support in his run for the U.S. Senate.

[B Knotts]

BTW, I love your screen name.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

As a matter of fact one does not have to have a license to "marry" since two persons who cohabit for a period of time are married in a sense.

Common law marriages aren't recognized in all states.

[discipler]

Thanks for your post. The Mass. Supreme Court questioned what harm could come from allowing gay marriages? Your point goes to the heart of answering that question.

Civil society has a strong interest in protecting marriage and the family. Children, and all future generations benefit by honoring the marriage union. Society benefitted by stable marriages because stable children were created. Business was encouraged provide health care for the family because what was good for the family was good for them. Homosexual "couples" bring no benefit to society. It seems that their primary goal to the benefits society has long agreed should go to the family.

Sadly, we have been losing ground on this issue for years. The marriage and divorce laws were loosened making it more likely that children would be raised by one parent. The 35 year experiment of easier divorces have proven that children aren't better off (see Whitehead article on Divorce). Marriage has taken a beating and pronouncements today on the sanctity of marriage falls on a large number of deaf ears.

Couple the increase in divorce with the increased number of children born out of wedlock and the problem is so great as to make it virtually impossible to "get the genie back into the bottle."

Let's hope that the tide can and will turn. Pray that 2004 will bring a backlash as the "silent majority" vote and give Republicans an even larger majority in both houses. We've seen the clout a very small segment of society can have, able to sway courts and Democratic leaders to supports their causes. We must believe that the majority (though slim) can work to set these things right.

Also, let's hope these judges can be reached to rethink their decision. If not, they can be impeached.

[RobbyS]

In 1960 they weren't recognized anywhere. I think Louisiana was the last to abolish it. But then came the
60s and its reinstitution. This is in response to the tremedous number of couples who don't bother to have a formal marriage and just sort of "jump over the broomstick together."

[RobbyS]

They are not going to change their minds. It is who they are.
Lawyers dominate evey department of government and even private industry. Shoot everyone in a board meeting and you are bound to hit a lawyer.

[South40]

Thath's juth mean.

[maica]

Let's hope that the tide can and will turn. Pray that 2004 will bring a backlash as the "silent majority" vote and give Republicans an even larger majority in both houses. We've seen the clout a very small segment of society can have, able to sway courts and Democratic leaders to supports their causes. We must believe that the majority (though slim) can work to set these things right.

Jim Taranto, I think it was, said that this decision may make the frog jump out of the pot instead of staying in the ever-increasing warmth of the cooking water.

I like this analogy , and pray that it will be so. For any basically conservative, but up-til-now not-interested-in-politics, American voter, this affront to our values by 4 judges should be the catalyst to getting some serious Republican senators elected next year.

[Clintonfatigued]

I am very aware of Jack Ryan, and he is a stellar candidate. He is a successful investment banker who sold his business to give back to the community. Currently, he teaches at an inner-city parochial school for free, and even helps pay for books and materials. He is a compassionate conservative with TWO capitol C's.

[Don Corleone]

would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle

They can do that right now in ANY state. All they have to do is go to a lawyer and have the proper papers drawn up for wills, joint ownership etc. They don't NEED the state to certify their relationship. They are determined to undermine the family basis of society and thousands of years of historical evidence that family solidarity makes liveable societies possible.

[Reactionary]

"These beings were complete, incredibly happy, and even arrogant. This angered the gods who were incredibly jealous. The gods split these beings in half, which is the present state of mankind. We all search for our other half in hopes of becoming whole again."

Actually, Aristophanes says that men and women were originally shaped like the sun, the stars, the moon. They were shaped like the celestial gods, having been created by them.

As to the second point, these "original" human beings rebelled against the Gods. Aristophanes does not indicate as to why this happened.

The rest? I don't have a problem with it. It appears to be accurate. :)

[Jim Noble]

SCOTUS will ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, as it is mere legislation vs. "full faith & credit" which is in the Constitution

As they should.

There is no question that the Federal Constitution requres 50-state recognition of Massachusetts gay "marriages", and that DOMA, to the extent that it contradicts this plain fact, is unconstitutional.

DOMA will be struck down the first time it is challenged, probably within three months.

I hate the idea of an amendment (and it will rapidly become unmanageable, as court usurpations proliferate)-but it has to be done.