Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
The White House ^ | Nov 18, 2003 | President Bush

Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; catholiclist; clark; dean; family; goodridge; homosexualagenda; howarddean; kerry; marriage; matrimony; presbush; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 next last
Following will be the statements of the RATs which so far are 180 from President Bush's! Anyone that needs an additional reason to support President Bush over any DemocRAT -- here it is!
1 posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:46 PM PST by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Bump
2 posted on 11/18/2003 3:04:49 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; My2Cents; onyx; JohnHuang2; Dog Gone; Dog; isthisnickcool; OKSooner; VOA; mhking; ...
And now for the DemocRATS! Let's start with Dean -- do you want this man for President? Spread the word on what he is saying!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 18, 2003

Contact: Press Office, 802-651-3200

Statement of Governor Dean on Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling>

MANCHESTER--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling:

"As Governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Today, the Massachusetts Court appears to have taken a similar approach to the Vermont Supreme Court and its decision that led to our civil unions law. One way or another, the state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

"There will be those who try to use the decision today to divide Americans. Instead, this decision should be viewed as an opportunity to affirm what binds us together -- a fundamental belief in the equality of human beings, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation."

-- 30 --

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10573&

3 posted on 11/18/2003 3:06:32 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Constitutional amendment is needed.

Some will protest that this is not of sufficient import for amending the Constitution, but it is the traditional family that is the basis for our entire culture and society.

4 posted on 11/18/2003 3:08:02 PM PST by B Knotts (Go 'Nucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: All
Statement from John Kerry on Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

November 18, 2003

For Immediate Release

“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1118a.html

6 posted on 11/18/2003 3:08:35 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
From The Boston Globe:
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."

7 posted on 11/18/2003 3:09:37 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Good for you, Mr. President. A quick reply from the heart that didn't wait for poll numbers.

This alone could get you four more years.

8 posted on 11/18/2003 3:10:17 PM PST by Semper911 (For some people, bread and circus are not enough. Hence, FreeRepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
For Immediate Release
Date: November 18, 2003

General Clark Responds to the Massachusetts Court Decision

"As a society we should be looking for ways to bring us together and as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual-orientation, I appreciate todays decision. As President, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get. If the Massachusetts legislature decides to legalize same-sex marriages, it will be up to each state to decide whether those marriages will be valid in their state-- and that is a choice each state, not the courts, will have to make.

My hope is that disagreements over this issue can be handled with tolerance and understanding."

http://clark04.com/press/release/085/

9 posted on 11/18/2003 3:10:55 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Also from The Boston Globe:
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay, said the decision "will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else." Rep. Marty Meehan agreed. "There will be some from the right who will try to paint a picture that this will somehow be an infringement on heterosexual couples, I don't view it that way," said Meehan, also a Democrat.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the decision was a "welcome new milestone on the road to full civil rights for all our citizens.

"It's wrong for any state to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections that the laws of the state provide for married couples," Kennedy said.


10 posted on 11/18/2003 3:11:27 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
He said this today after the ruling? Let's hope.
11 posted on 11/18/2003 3:12:56 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Thanks for posting Bush's statement. We should all call to thank him and urge him to stand firm.
12 posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:01 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Statement Of Senator Edwards On Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today:

"As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision.

"We are a nation comprised of men and women from all walks of life. It is in our national character to provide equal opportunity to all, and this is what unites our country, in laws and in shared purpose. That is why today, we must also reach out to those individuals who will try to exploit this decision to further divide our nation, and ask them to refrain from that effort."

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=370

13 posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:05 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Our president is willing to take on this issue in a legal and constitutional manner. The rats can't handle that.

Anyone who posts that there is no difference between the two parties should have their posting privileges banned for posting without a mind.
14 posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:20 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples.

Incompatible goals. We have to realize that it is not an equal protection issue.

15 posted on 11/18/2003 3:13:48 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
Lieberman Statement On Mass. Gay Marriage Ruling (November 18, 2003)

ARLINGTON, VA -- Joe Lieberman issued the following response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling allowing same-sex unions in the state:

"Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions. I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6270&news_iv_ctrl=1001

16 posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:25 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Gov. Mitt Romney said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."

Thank you, Mr. Governor. I voted for this man.

17 posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:44 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I just went on-air with Jerry Agar (50,000 watts - WPTF, Raleigh) to discuss the ramifications of this decision. Bottom line, I said it will probably be reversed by passage of the proposed US Constition amendment to define marriage as a union of "one man and one woman." Further, I said that President Bush will support this amendment, and all the Democrat candidates will be forced to oppose it, with the result of putting the Democrat nominee -- whoever it is -- further behind the political eight-ball.

Looks like it is playing out that way, though notice the weasel-statement by Kerry who says he "opposes" homosexual marriage but "supports equal rights" for homosexual couples. If he keeps waffling like that, folks will start confusing him with Wesley Clark. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

18 posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:45 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
John Kerry
“I have long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long over due.”

Is this the mother of all waffles or what?

19 posted on 11/18/2003 3:15:52 PM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Dear Barney Frank,


This is not about the "couples." Marriage is to protect the Family, which means the children of a union between a man and a woman, so that they become healthy productive adults. That is the only way a society can survivel

For a group who say that the government has no business in their bedroom, they are demanding the government's blessing on their bedroom behavior.
20 posted on 11/18/2003 3:16:46 PM PST by maica (Leadership matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
PREISDENT BUSH - mega-dittoes!!!!
21 posted on 11/18/2003 3:17:54 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Good news!!!
22 posted on 11/18/2003 3:18:29 PM PST by k2blader (Haruspex, beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Good summary.
23 posted on 11/18/2003 3:18:56 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Anyone who posts that there is no difference between the two parties should have their posting privileges banned for posting without a mind.

Agree with that 100%! If anyone needed an example of this difference, all they have to do is read this thread and see what President Bush has to say and then the replies of the Dem candidates so as not to disappoint their Gay/Lesbian contingency.

I really am surprised at LIEberman the most. Dean and Kerry I figured they would not mind this ruling. Clark and Edwards put their fingers in the wind to make sure how everyone was coming down on this issue first. But LIE -- never would have figured him for such a statement that he will oppose the Marriage Amendment.

Don't understand what this has to do with equal protection either.

24 posted on 11/18/2003 3:19:04 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
I would agree it is the Mother of all Waffles! Had to read it twice to make sure what it said!
25 posted on 11/18/2003 3:19:59 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
...so far are 180 from President Bush's!

They are 180 from the majority of Americans.

26 posted on 11/18/2003 3:20:05 PM PST by Indy Pendance (Don't sweat the petty . . . pet the sweaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I have mixed feelings about the ruling. There is an advantage to having at least one state that approves such unions -- all the gay people will flock there to sanctify their unions, so at least they'll be all in one place. Also, on the very tenuous assumption that legitimizing homosexuality is a good thing, would it be better for them to enter into exclusivity bonds like this, rather than continue a promiscuous lifestyle? At least as far as spreading AIDS is concerned? If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around. At least they're committing themselves, which is more mature and less self-serving than being sluts.

The real question precludes those arguments, of course: Is homosexuality an inevitable part of our culture? I think a lot of conservatives would say "Probably". Not to say that it's genetic -- merely that it is a large enough subculture that it isn't going away.

Don't mean to start any arguments on that, just making sure people know my own misgivings on the issue.

27 posted on 11/18/2003 3:20:46 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Anyone that needs an additional reason to support President Bush over any DemocRAT -- here it is!

AMEN!!!

28 posted on 11/18/2003 3:21:12 PM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
If Dean is nominated, I believe his position on gay marriage will turn-off the general population easily as much as his tax-hike proposals will.

I can't imagine Dean winning the White House.

29 posted on 11/18/2003 3:23:26 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Is this the mother of all waffles or what?

I was incredulous when I read it.!It really shows that he has no respect for the intellegence of the voters in his party. Of course, I have no respect either.!!!

30 posted on 11/18/2003 3:25:03 PM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

31 posted on 11/18/2003 3:25:33 PM PST by Yosemitest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom; Grampa Dave; Congressman Billybob; My2Cents; MeeknMing; Liz; nopardons
Let the battle lines be drawn.

It's high time the democrats are forced to cater to some of their "group support," in this case, the gays.

What can we expect next? Why reparations of course. Bring it on Rev. Al, make your party put up or shut up. :)
32 posted on 11/18/2003 3:26:01 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Old Joey the Lie sounds like a Liebertarian here doesn't he:

"Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions. I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."
33 posted on 11/18/2003 3:27:22 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
OK, so he is going after the gay metrosexual confederate vote.
34 posted on 11/18/2003 3:27:59 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
Good for you, Mr. President. A quick reply from the heart that didn't wait for poll numbers

This alone could get you four more years

I hope the Demo candidates carress and applaud the Minn. Supremes!! Nothing, NOTHING will turn clinch the vote for Bush more than this STUPID SICK RULING!!!!!

35 posted on 11/18/2003 3:28:42 PM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This is a hypothetical question, which I see as an outcome of this decision, and I haven't seen it asked, but it may have. I haven't read all the posts regarding this decision.

If, states pass this decision, it is in direct conflict with the teachings of the majority of religions. If a gay couple demands a religious demoniation marry them (church cermony), and that religion refuses, based upon their teachings, will the government intervene and tell the church they have to marry them, is this a direct violation of the first amendment?

36 posted on 11/18/2003 3:28:49 PM PST by Indy Pendance (Don't sweat the petty . . . pet the sweaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
While I continue to oppose gay marriage

Somebody should jump on Mr. Kerry and ask him why he opposes marriage but supports unions. Are gays fundamentally different that they can't be served with the same process?

Shalom.

37 posted on 11/18/2003 3:30:21 PM PST by ArGee (Would human clones work better than computers? Both would be man-made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
My hope is that disagreements over this issue can be handled with tolerance and understanding."

Gays need treatment, not tolerance.

Shalom.

38 posted on 11/18/2003 3:32:24 PM PST by ArGee (Would human clones work better than computers? Both would be man-made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: pollywog
Bush knows full well that this opinion just gives the far left more talking points:

Stem cell ruling: Bush hates crippled people.
Condemnation of 9/11 attacks: Bush hates Muslims.
Decision to invade Iraq: Bush hates Iraqis and loves oil.
Gay marriage opinion: Bush hates gay people.

40 posted on 11/18/2003 3:34:03 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
we must also reach out to those individuals who will try to exploit this decision to further divide our nation, and ask them to refrain from that effort."

"IOW, trample the oppositions freedom of speech and right to disagree straight into the ground!"

Prairie

41 posted on 11/18/2003 3:34:13 PM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I will oppose any attempts by the right wing to change the Constitution in response to today's ruling, which would be unnecessary and divisive."

Leiberman takes it a step further...

Prairie

42 posted on 11/18/2003 3:35:36 PM PST by prairiebreeze (My dad, a WWII veteran always said that America's best ally was...Britain. He was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:

a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.
b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.
c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.
d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.

You may respond, "Yes, but marriage has such a clear positive effect for society that it is reasonable to give it legal acknowledgment and benefits." If that is the case, then, certainly, the same can be said for church attendance. Should you get legal benefits for that as well?
43 posted on 11/18/2003 3:35:58 PM PST by jde1953
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; PhiKapMom
The lines are being drawn. I believe that a majority of the moderate voters will vote Republican in 2004, and many will become Republicans during this upcoming election.

The Rats stand for slavery, deaths of unborn babies, they love and protect people like Soddomite and hate a man like GW. They want to repeal our tax cuts to pay for more perversion.

Many Americans will recognize what Anne Coulter has said about the rats to be true. They are traitors.

Before this is over, Gray Davis may be the lucky rat to be out of the firestorm that is coming. A lot of rats in office are looking a Gray Davis and wondering when the voter lightening will strike them.

Last but not least, the rats being controlled by Soros will not go over very well with a lot of Americans.
44 posted on 11/18/2003 3:36:06 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today’s decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples."

WOW! Is that like saying I support the war against Iraq but call for us to take actions to arm the iraqis to defend themselves?


Patriot Paradox

45 posted on 11/18/2003 3:36:51 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000 (Al Jazeera? Al Sharpton? Al Gore? Al the same!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Thank you, Mr. Governor. I voted for this man

So did I, and I'm glad to see him come out against the ruling!

46 posted on 11/18/2003 3:37:55 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Do you mean the Red Neck Gay Metro Sexual Confederate Voter is what Metro Sexual Howie is targeting.
47 posted on 11/18/2003 3:38:15 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
which would be unnecessary and divisive."

Old Joe has laid out the spin, the dims will use in their defense of the undefensible.

We should ride this horse for all it's worth.!

48 posted on 11/18/2003 3:40:31 PM PST by woodyinscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
The Rats are really serving themselves up on a platter on this one. Lieberman is right about one thing - it is a divisive issue. It divides the country. Unfortunately for the rats it divides the country 60/40 for us - even higher if the wording is purely "gay marriage" and not civil unions or recognition. If Republicans had balls, brains, or a half measur eof either they would get behind the constitutional amendment and make it the defining issue of the next election. The last of the Southern Democrats would be finished, we would make inroads among African Americans, and Hispanics (who have large constituencies who aren't keen on gay marriage.), and a few of 2000 light blue states would turn red. It could result in conservative victories at all levels of government.
49 posted on 11/18/2003 3:41:58 PM PST by azcap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
BAH! Why can't these politicians actually have the guts to insist upon the separation of powers that is constitutionally guaranteed?

The court has no business using civil rights idealogy to overturn a matter of choice.. The legislature and executive branches are the only ones who can settle such a matter.

A shame he didn't take the opportunity to denouce judicial activism and fiats from the bench.
50 posted on 11/18/2003 3:42:17 PM PST by kingu (Judges are supposed to interpret law, not make it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-310 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson