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]

You don't like one or more of those elements, I take it?

[longtermmemmory]

The religion issue is irrelevant. Priests are generally notary pulblics who execute the marriage license. No government agency recognizes a "religious" ceremony.

The institution of marriage is the model we use to raise children. If government is removed from marriage, then government must be removed from all issues of all forms of property since marriage follows inheritances and property interests.

If you follow Dean's statement. You "observations" are exactly in line with is view point. The democrats would like nothing more than to make no marriage recognized ONLY civil unions are recognized under the law.

Homosexuals have no special right to marry. They can execute the same legal documents an unmarried couple can choose to do. This whole judgement is based on the flawed notion that marriage is just about love.

[Wolfstar]

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

Marriage has never stopped anyone who wanted lead a promiscuous lifestyle from doing so, and it never will. To assume that because gays would have access to government-sanctioned marriage some would not also be promiscuous is to fail to understand human nature.

This entirely manufactured issue of "gay marriage" is not about civil rights, nor about helping people avoid promiscuity. It is just another front in the Left's roughly 150-year-old assault on traditional social mores, and further their mission to increase the scope and reach of big government.

[pollywog]

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.

This is exactly what I thought when I heard this had passed.This is now going to sharply divide the democrats that have a conscience, and I am sure many will have to make some hard decisions!!!!!

[maica]

Government involvement in licensing marriage, and related matters such as inheritance and rights to make medical decisions, is the problem. In my view, the best way to deal with this is to return marriage and related matters entirely to the private sector.

I do not understand what you mean about "the private sector.' Laws regarding property are explicitly a government function. Property ownership and its orderly transfer are a large measure of the foundation of a successful society.

Otherwise, if the gays win on the same-sex marraige issue, there would be no legal foundation on which to bar polygamy, adult-child relationships, and the like.

This is one of the reasons that the Supreme Court decision about the prime 'right' being the 'right of privacy' is a wrong decision.

[onedoug]

'Thought you might appreciate these.

Homosexuality: An Attempt at Clarity

Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

[polemikos]

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.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the end of days after all.

[pollywog]

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

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

I am not from your state but I am going to write him and thank him for his stand, as a citizen of the USA. We are going to have to let the elected officals KNOW how we feel. They need all the support they can get. I am glad YOUR Governor stood his ground.

I am not sure WHERE our new Gov. Arnold stands...he would probably let it pass, unfortunately.

[longtermmemmory]

infidelity was legalized with no-fault marriage. With rare exception, infidelity is not even relevant/admissible in divorce court.

[RobertP]

I am still going ahead with my plans to build an Ark to be on the safe side. I just sent my wife out to gather up the animals, and I am going to Home Depot to get the lumber and nails.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Fred Barnes just about exploded when discussing that this major issue was decided by a 4-3 decision in the Mass Supreme Court"

---

Does anyone know how many of the 4 pro-gay-marriage Mass. judges were nominated by RINO governors Weld, Cellucci or Swift? Let's hope Arnold doesn't follow suit and nominate "progressive" judges to the California Supreme Court.

[jde1953]

'The religion issue is irrelevant. Priests are generally notary pulblics who execute the marriage license. No government agency recognizes a "religious" ceremony.'

My feelings precisely. So why have I heard so many people, during the debates over same-sex marriage, claim that marriage is a religious institution? Why does Pres. Bush refer to it as "sacred," wishing to preserve its "sanctity," if this is not in the religious sense?

In any case, only the *civil* part of marriage is recognized under the law as things stand now; the law doesn't care which supernatural entity you have called upon to bless the civil contract, and, as you correctly point out, the religious part alone doesn't qualify.

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement here.

[pollywog]

God will ultimately HAVE the FINAL WORD , Yosemitest!! Oh that men would realize this and repent of their wickedness. Who would have believed years ago we would be even VOTING on such a issue. God Help us.

[Indy Pendance]

Seriously, how would the courts intervine? What decisions could they rule upon, what precidents can they cite? This decision is, and my example is, just the tip of the iceburg. Don't you get the feeling this is just another nail in the coffin of our constitution?

[ArGee]

Homosexuals have no special right to marry.

Does anybody have a right to marry? Wouldn't requiring a license obviate a right?

Shalom.

[pollywog]

Yes, I did mean Mass!....I had just sent a email to someone in Minn and had " Minn" on the brain!! LOL! I stand corrected.

[William McKinley]

I see it the other way. I see it as a case of a side which has been trying to boil a frog by slowly increasing the gas turning the knob too audaciously, and the critter is about to jump out of their pot.

But, if the precedent of judges being able to dictate from the bench what legistlatures cannot or will not is allowed to stand forever, then you are right. But I don't think that trend will be allowed to stand. It required people not noticing that we have a tryanny of the judiciary, but rulings like this are waking people up.

Or at least, that is the sense of my optimistic eyes.

I can see it now, a court ruling that the first amendment's edict that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion does not mean that churches can 'discriminate' against gay church members. Can't you?

[ohioWfan]

BUMP!!

Praise the LORD for this President!

[armadale]

sorry, but I don't understand the phrase "sanctity of marriage" when a couple such as Liza Minelli and David Gest will still be able to marry!

[Spunky]

"I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

I thank God that we have him as our President.