Posted on 05/17/2015 6:10:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Jeb Bush knows the way he would rule on same-sex marriage if he were a Supreme Court justice.
Interviewed Sunday by the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, Bush was asked whether he believed that gay marriage was a right protected by the U.S. constitution.
“I don’t, but I’m not a lawyer, and clearly this has been accelerated at a warp pace,” he said.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule sometime next month on whether gay marriage should be made legal in all 50 U.S. states, and Bush tied the future of the country itself to the issue of the family structure.
"To imagine how we're going to succeed in our country unless we have committed family life, a child-centered family system, is hard to imagine," Bush said. "Irrespective of the Supreme Court ruling, because they're going to decide whatever they decide, and I don't know what they're going to do, we need to be stalwart supporters of traditional marriage."
In previous interviews, Bush has argued that same-sex marriage is something best left to the states to decide. On Sunday, however, he spoke about the issue in much more urgent, and moralistic terms.
"If we want to create a right-to-rise society, where people, particularly children born in poverty, if we want to have them have a chance we should be—a core American value," Bush said, "we have to restore committed, loving family life with a mom and a dad loving their children with their heart and soul."
In the wake of the nationwide controversy over so-called religious freedom laws, that critics argue allow for discrimination against same-sex couples, Bush was asked whether he thought it acceptable for business owners to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
lol
nice try Jeb.
But sorry, we aren’t buying what your selling!
He said, “I don’t, but ...”
That doesn’t sound like someone with a moral compass, but someone who wants to get elected and then get all wishy washy on marriage.
I too am more than a little annoyed by that term. I prefer “genuine marriage”, as it is more accurate.
Ooh, his lib base is not going to like this
Watching an entitled GOP rings liberal candidacy. What a s storm
He has a brother who calls the savage islamic head choppers the ‘Religion of Peace’.....
I’m pretty sure the (barf) means the same as a sarcasm symbol like /s
I don’t think you’ll have much company among freepers voting for Jebster if they find a way to nominate him.
(When page opens, click on "Jackson bushes".)
Good Grief, man, don't even go there; did you see my tagline?
“'I don’t, but I’m not a lawyer [emphasis added], and clearly this has been accelerated at a warp pace,' he said."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Contrary to Jeb’s PC implication that you need to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Constitution was written so that us ordinary folks could understand it.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Noting that the only sex-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, the basic question about the constitutionality of the so-called “right” to gay marriage is the following.
What is the age of the youngest grade school student who can read the Constitution and conclude that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, the states therefor free to make laws which prohibit gay marriage?
Finally, note that if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time. And if such was the case, then patriots probably wouldn’t have to be concerned about pro-gay activist justices wrongly trying to legislate the so-called “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and activist justices along with it.
“It’s marriage, to call it any other name means there are other types of marriage, which there’s not.”
I agree with what you are trying to say. Only a man and woman bound together can make a “marriage.”
However, to me the term “traditional” means more than just a male and female married. It means it is a lifetime commitment to be “traditional.” Divorces are rare and not a something ever quickly considered or granted easily by law - there is no such thing a “no fault” divorce. “Traditional” marriage is not something you do after living with (a pre-marital sexual arrangement) another...it is what you do before any sex. In a “traditional” marriage world, sex is reserved for marriage only. A legal marriage is a license to engage in sex with that one other person of the opposite gender...and gives it the blessings and protection of law. It protects the couple, their children and family, and it protects the society they live in.
So, to me, “traditional marriage” does have meaning. I wished it did for many more.
The other poster at # 12 seemed to misunderstand your post and said he’d also vote for Jeb if he is the nominee.
He didn’t get the (barf)
Jeb is becoming a hoot a minute.
Jebbie doesn’t believe any of that. He’s pandering. He’s screwed the pooch and must make amends.
Don’t buy it.
Say anything; do anything. It’s the political way.
I always say “sacramental marriage.” Most don’t even know what that is.
Seems easy to pretend to be a conservative on an issue he will never have any say over.
To believe that one has to be a lawyer to have a valid opinion about the constitution is ridiculous. I would say that lawyers are the ones that have ruined this nation.
Head fake. A lie.
If (and I pray often that they don’t) SCOTUS rules against God and nature, he’ll say “Settled law! Settled law!”
He did, but he didn't give tax breaks and other such governmental nonsense -when the government got involved, it was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened.
Being as how we live under the Constitution as far as how power was supposed to be distributed, the States make sense - many have tried to stop it and were overridden by the Federal "courts".
Much would be a lot closer to God's Will if the States insisted on their 10th Amendment rights and told the Feds to cram it....
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.