What the ?? Fox News Says David Dreier and Tom DeLay Won't Support Amendment to Define Marriage?

FREEPers Everywhere

[Recovering_Democrat]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me? President Bush comes out on the RIGHT side of the culture war, to save marriage (whatever you might think of the Constitutional Amendment idea) and TWO of the biggest Republicans in the HOUSE are already poo-poohing the idea!!

I don't really care to hear Bush bashing or Republican Party bashing in general...I'd really LOVE to hear some ideas on why these guys aren't coming out and saying some GOOD things.

Geez, Bill Clinton was wrong on SO MUCH, and his party marched in lockstep to defend him nearly everyday. Today, finding a member of the leadership rushing to defend this President is like looking for hen's teeth.

[Guillermo]

I don't know if it does or not, but I'm certain an argument can be made that it should.

One thing's for certain:

Any marriage made in an Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas is valid in Kansas. If it's valid in one state, it's valid in all others. This is not in doubt.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I posted this in "questions and opinions" because I only heard it in Q&A session w/John Gibson and, I think, Jim Rosen (?) their reporter at the White House.

[jwalsh07]

Call Tome Delay

Washington DC Office
242 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Ph. (202) 225-5951
Fax (202) 225-5241

[SolidSupplySide]

Does "FF&C" give me the right to use my concealed carry permit in NY?

Perfect analogy. FF&C has never been used to make a state violate its own laws. Just as your CC permit is worthless in NY because of NY law, a gay marriage is null and void in any state in which gay marriage is not legal.

[FairOpinion]

"What other means are there to prevent courts from legalizing same-sex marriages?"

===

ELECT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, SO CONSERVATIVE JUDGES WILL BE APPOINTED.

Constitutional Amendment is a big thing, it has to be passed, than ratified by the states, etc -- all, because we have a bunch of liberal judges who legislate from the bench. We may pass this Amendment, but what about the next liberal issue the judges take up? We can't keep amending the Constitution about every social issue.

We need to solve the REAL problem, which is the liberal judges on the bench.

That is why it is ESSENTIAL for the conservative agenda, to re-elect President Bush and send him more Republicans to Congress, so conservative judges, who interpret the law, can be nominated, confirmed and appointed.

[StoneColdGOP]

I won't speak to Drier's district, but as a resident of DeLay's I can tell you that his district would vote for a dry turd if it had an 'R' after its name.

The same holds true for David Dreier's district as well. It's a heavily GOP area. And the Republicans are the hardcore type that are strong against illegal aliens and homosexual marriage, both issues where they evidently part ways with Dreier.

As to why, well, rumor has it you might expect to see Dreier guest hosting on "Queer Eye" someday.

[Spiff]

I believe you will find that they disagree with the Musgrave language in the legislation.

[bornintexas]

It would be nice FOR ONCE IN MY LIFETIME to see the pubbies in our party stand TOGETHER!! How do they think that clintonslime got away with murder? The dims, however much I dislike their views.....they always stick together. Always. They always BACKED their president. You can't even get that from pubbies when they know most of the country side with Bush. What the hell is the matter with Delay?

[ilgipper]

I think this was the same approach to the 'amnesty'. It was known it would not pass, but Bush got to take an issue off the table for the election.

[CaptainLou]

Pretty cynical, I hope you are wrong.

I hope I'm wrong as well. Actions speak louder than words though, the President can make this a major issue, he can threaten to veto all sorts of bills near and dear to the hearts of congressmen, he can instruct the RNC to withhold funds from opponents, he can campaign for those who support the bill. He can make this a major centerpiece of his reelection campaign so that he garners a mandate for its passage. In short, he can take the bull by the horn and show the same leadership that got his tax cuts passed.

Hopefully that is the approach we'll see in coming months.

[Tempest]

Your absolutely right an admendment is neccesary for the specific purpose of preventing the courts from legislating from the bench.

[Guillermo]

Courts do not hear hypothetical cases. They only hear cases in which someone can show they've been harmed.

Since homosexual "marriage" is not legal in any state (yet), there has been no case in which someone can show that the Defense of Marriage Act it has caused them harm (ie, one state not recognizing a legal, state sanctioned contract).

The legal challenge will come once a state officially recognizes homosexual "marriage" and a couple demands recognition in another, and is denied that recognition.

[ForOurFuture]

What other means are there to prevent courts from legalizing same-sex marriages?

Fill the bench with judges who won't and impeach those who do. Amending the Constitution whenever leftist activist judges rewrite the law is akin to conceding their right to do it. It amounts to retreating. Supporting this amendment is a superficial and politically expedient way for Bush and the GOP to get kudos from conservatives and still avoid those things which in the scheme of things are more important and take balls and fortitude to do.

[unspun]

Congressman Tom can feel the heat, if he doesn't see the light. Drier is in California -- who knows what he feels?

[isthisnickcool]

I saw Jerrold's name up there. So I had to post his pretty picture. Looks natural doesn't he? I heard he and John F-ng Kerry go to the same embalmer.

[ambrose]

And what happens if someone goes to the Supreme Court to challenge this?

See, we're heading down an awful slippery slope. Amending the constitution based on hypothetical problems and possible future rulings from the Supreme Court. IF the Supreme Court said the Defense of Marriage Act violated Full Faith and Credit, then we could amend the Full Faith and Credit clause to eliminate marriage from it.

This way we still have a Constitution that respects the concepts of a Federal Republic.

I wish people would think this through. It is the Socialist agenda to kill the Republic and have the states melt away.. this only helps them.

[CA Conservative]

It is also irrelevant because no Judges is going to rule in favor of reducing their power.

Actually, this is not an issue, because the judges don't have a say, under the Constitution. The Exceptions Clause gives Congress the power to restrict or deny the courts jurisdiction over certain issues. If Congress had the cojones to do this, the courts could not intervene, under the separation of powers doctrine.

[wylenetheconservative]

Drier can't afford to back this, his district is trending hard D as more Latinos move into the LA suburbs. I don't know what DeLay might be thinking (If this is true of course).

[Recovering_Democrat]

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. Please be seated.

Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.

[Cboldt]

Two of the top Repub congressmen are basically siding with John Kerry.

Negative. That is not true. They are on opposite sides of the issue. The difference of opinion between Bush and DeLay isn't as to the side of the issue, but as to how to reach the object.