Bush marriage stance not 'clear'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 18, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[MEGoody]

"Because they elected him?"

Because there weren't enough concerned women? Or maybe there were lots of concerned women, they just weren't concerned enough to want the job?

I'm just kidding here. Don't get too upset.

[MEGoody]

"Once people stop playing with words to deceive others maybe our nation just might have a slim chance of re-gaining a sliver of moral decency."

Agreed. And once people stop putting words in other's mouths just so they have a reason to complain, they might have time to work on the 'slim chance.'

[joesbucks]

Now if Clinton took the same sensible approach to this issue as Bush, would you be defending his actions?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. -proposed Federal Marriage Amendment

The phrase "legal incidents thereof" directly preempts the use of equal protection arguments in future litigation that would equate marriage law and civil union law. I believe that is the optimal effect.

This does not restrict states from creating benefits for gay couples, but it does restrict them from tying them together with marriage benefits. Therefore gay couples cannot sue for rights conferred upon hetersexual couples. Therefore marriage law can remain untouched.

I think this equal protection aspect needs to be highlighted and understood better. If ratified, this would be the first amendment to the constitution whose main intention is to preempt judicial activism. Note the use of the word "construed."

[sinkspur]

Yes.

[Fishrrman]

TheDon writes:
Bush will never approve of homosexual "marriage". Nor will the people of the US.

It _matters not_ whether "the people of the US" approve of homosexual marriage or not. Not a single whit.

What "matters" is whether five justices of the United States Supreme Court can be persuaded to sign onto such a notion.

As of right now, whether they would do so, or would not do so, is unclear, in light of their more recent decisions.

The ONLY way to _prevent the five_ from ever being able to make such a decision is to "place it out of their reach". That is to say, we must take the issue of homosexual marriage and place it beyond the grasp of EVERY judge in America, beyond the grasp of EVERY court in America. We must place it onto a pedastal above and beyond the reach of the Courts, because it through the Courts by which the other side will win this fight.

And the ONLY way we can do this, is to enact a Defense and Definition of Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution.

These are the choices - the ONLY choices - in this battle:
1. Enact a Defense of Marriage Amendment, and put the issue of "gay marriage" to rest once and for all -OR-
2. Fail to enact such an amendment, and END UP with gay marriage imposed throughout the United States by the Supreme Court.

Which choice is yours?

Cheers!
- John

[TheDon]

It _matters not_ whether "the people of the US" approve of homosexual marriage or not. Not a single whit.

...

The ONLY way to _prevent the five_ from ever being able to make such a decision is to "place it out of their reach". ... And the ONLY way we can do this, is to enact a Defense and Definition of Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Contradictory statements alert!

That being said, DOMA is, amazingly, required in today's world. Whether or not is should be an election year issue is another matter altogether.

Abortion is an excellent demonstration of the legislature abdicating an issue which is a purely in their sphere.

[MikeJ75]

This does not restrict states from creating benefits for gay couples, but it does restrict them from tying them together with marriage benefits. Therefore gay couples cannot sue for rights conferred upon hetersexual couples. Therefore marriage law can remain untouched.

If California passes a law (and it has) saying that registered domestic partners may inherit from each other even if the two same sex partners do not have a will, and someone challenges the inheritance in court by claiming that California law does not allow domestic partners to inherit from each other, what would the proposed Constitutional amendment require the court to do?

Can the court construe California law to allow inheritance without a will, which is plainly the intent of the California Legislature? Isn't inheritance without a will by persons who are not related by blood a legal incident of marriage?

[Salvation]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---

[Willie Green]

"Civil unions" is essentially a legal issue, and can be done now. The radical right is just trying to grab on to an issue, since Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Does that mean that we can expect Bubba Bush to tell us that it all 'depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is'???

[AFA-Michigan]

"Cheney is not for civil unions."

That's like some politician saying he's personally opposed to abortion, but believes women should be legally free to have one nonetheless.

Transcript from Vice Presidential Debate, Fall 2000:

CHENEY: And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you asked of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe (Lieberman), I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."

http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/001009transcript_q.html

[little jeremiah]

The homosexuals don't reawlly want "marriage," they want aceptance and approvel.

Maybe some want acceptance and approval. But there is a deeper reason for the push for "gay" marriage, as stated by "gay" activists themselves. It is to destroy the natural family, to destroy the tradition of marriage itself. They admit that they want to change the very fabric of society into a sexual free for all, and influence children from the earliest age that same sex acts are normal and natural.

If you'd like to really learn a lot about the "gay" agenda, their plans, and the harm caused by homsexuality, check out scripter's list of articles -

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links -

by going to his profile page. (there's a way to get that to make a link but I haven't learned how yet!)

[sinkspur]

So? Cheney's daughter's gay; I can understand his perspective.

Legal arrangements for people in relationships are a matter for the states, not the federal government.

[AFA-Michigan]

I agree Cheney's perspective is clearly understandable. The debate was over whether or not that is his perspective, and obviously it is.

He's entitled to his opinion.

Ours is that a Federal Marriage Amendment should protect the institution of marriage -- not just the name "marriage" -- by prohibiting not only so-called homosexual "marriage" but legal counterfeits that are granted all the legal status of marriage except by another name (Vermont "civil unions" or California "domestic partnerships").

[NutCrackerBoy]

Can the court construe California law to allow inheritance without a will, which is plainly the intent of the California Legislature? Isn't inheritance without a will by persons who are not related by blood a legal incident of marriage?

My take would be that only those state civil union laws that make an implicit equation with marriage law would be voided if and when FMA is ratified. If the civil union law explicitly makes an accomodation, then it is no longer a legal incident of marriage in that instance.

This creates a bit of a mess, though. A parallel set of laws. A parallel set of judicial precedents. Judges have a nasty habit of creating doctrines to eliminate untidiness.

[RogerFGay]

Bush says he is leaving it to the states to determine whatever legal arrangements they want to make as long as it doesn't endanger the sanctity of marriage.

Why that doesn't fly logically is that the federal government has fully entrenched itself in family law over the past quarter century (leading to where we are today). When it's too obviously in trouble, the problems are being blamed on the courts or left to the states. Either of those alternatives would be perfectly valid if it came with action to get the federal government out of marriage and family issues.