Bush: Wait on Amendment Defining Marriage

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/02/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[jwalsh07]

Is his denial of cert in Equality Foundation v Cincinnati indicative of nothing as well?

Evidently

[AntiGuv]

You'll have to explain how posting a link to the decision answers the question.

[jwalsh07]

"As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits." Justice Stephens

[AntiGuv]

It's promising that you recognize that the Court applies restraint in its review of 'gay rights' cases, but the fact remains that neither Breyer nor Kennedy nor O'Connor saw fit to apply Romer in this instance - thereby "ruling on the merits" in favor of the challenge...

[jwalsh07]

It's promising that you recognize that the Court applies restraint in its review of 'gay rights' cases,

:-}

I take it that means that you agree the denail of cert in that case is "indicative of nothing".

[AntiGuv]

Not quite. My previous statements have been that the Court is unlikely to apply Lawrence aggressively [i.e. as a precedent to same-sex marriage], because it has proven disinclined to apply Romer aggressively [e.g. in Dale or Equality Foundation]. The denial of cert is indicative of that.

[Sabertooth]

I was commenting on the poster's claim that Bush was somehow in favor, or rather not against, homosexuality because his actions in elevating some known homosexuals to office.

To assert my point, I posted a quote from Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia" which commented on the fallacy of electing public servants in accordance to their religious beliefs.

Since the major objection to homosexuality is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs against sodomy, the poster was in fact questioning Bush's Christianity at the very least.

My post was to point out that Thomas Jefferson understood the need to not only keep the government away from religion, but religion away from the business of running the country.

Jefferson understood, I understood him, and Dubya understands as well.

We will all wait for you to catch up.

Hmm. Well, here's your post in question, with emphasis added...

---

To: AntiGuv

You mean that like the dissenting Justices in Lawrence, he saw that the Texas law was a bad law?

You mean that this president promotes people based on merit, and sees all as American citizens?

You mean that he believes in not discriminating over discriminating?

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." ---Thomas Jefferson

Imagine that!

65 posted on 07/02/2003 5:21 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

"Our civil rights," to which Jefferson was referring (and the phrase with which you led off your quote) were freedom of expression and religious liberty, basic First Amendment stuff. The quote you excerpted is irrelevant with regard to an alleged civil right of sodomy, not only on its own merits, but also in the greater context of Jefferson’s known writings about sodomy, of which he didn’t approve, and to which he certainly imagined no right.

Yet, you used Jefferson’s quote to imply that he would have approved of George Bush’s appointment of an open homosexual to a government position, despite the illogicality of doing so. I do confess some difficulty in keeping up with all of this, which you’ve sensed, but let’s see where things lead.

You attempt to buttress your misunderstanding of Jefferson (I’m assuming you were unaware of the error) with the assertion, "Since the major objection to homosexuality is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs against sodomy, the poster was in fact questioning Bush's Christianity at the very least."

Luis, the poster never mentioned Bush’s Christianity, nor anyone’s religion. Do you have an unannounced talent as a telepath? This seems to be just a cover for the misapplication of Jefferson’s comments on religious liberty to support your contention that there is an unenumerated civil right to sodomy, by means of a retroactive strawman about AntiGuv’s comments.

Yet this is a different retroactive strawman than the one posted at #121, "You are asking me what Jefferson may have thought about buggery, when I am posting what Jefferson thought about the fallacy of promoting or not promoting someone to public office based on their religious beliefs?"

So at #121 you’re saying that AntiGuv was making an argument in favor of denying someone a promotion on the basis of their religious beliefs (he didn’t), and at #169, you’re saying that AntiGuv was questioning Bush’s Christianity (which he also didn’t). You’re right, I’m having difficulty keeping up… are you going with one strawman, or both?

Back to the assertion, "Since the major objection to homosexuality is based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs against sodomy." Having stated at #121 that Jefferson "believed that politicians should not be elected or not elected based on their religious ideology, but rather on their ability to govern," you’ve attempted to set up a religious standard by which objections to homosexuality are rejected, because they reflect Judeo-Christian beliefs, and therefore violate the civil rights of homosexuals.

This is a novel interpretation, as I’m not aware of any other legal theory which asserts a right to sodomy under the penumbra of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. I’m not sure such a theory would have found much concurrence among the Founders, either.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"His statement was not categorical, but ever so slightly qualified."

Show me the qualification.

[AntiGuv]

He voiced categorical support for the idea, he did not voice categorical belief in the idea. Once again, ever so slightly qualified. If you insist on pounding this into the ground, the answer will remain the same.

If it helps resolve this inane debate, he did voice categorical belief during the Oct 11, 2000 presidential debate:

BUSH: I’m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the vice president supported it.

GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions. And I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, and I think the three of us have one view and the governor has another view.

BUSH: I’m not sure what kind of view he’s ascribing to me. One day he says he agrees with me, then he says he doesn’t. I will be a tolerant person. I’ve been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t really think it’s any of my concern how you conduct your sex life. That’s a private matter.

Note that George W. Bush also voiced indifference to homosexuality beyond the same-sex marriage issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The quote you excerpted is irrelevant with regard to an alleged civil right of sodomy"

Toothy, you need to take a catnap or something, you're starting to lose it; of course the quote I posted is irrelevant to "an alleged civil right of sodomy", that's not what's being discussed on this thread at all, it was not what Jefferson was talking about, or what I was discussing with the poster...unless somehow you've come to believe that Bush is a homo.

The thread is about a Defense of Marriage Amendment, and the poster I was responding to questioned Bush's stance on the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general:

"You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, do you? His actions indicate otherwise."

I asked the poster to list some actions of President Bush's which would support his statement, and he listed the fact that Bush had promoted an openly homosexual ambassador, hired someone for the White House Staff who was homosexual, and failed to order the DoJ to write an Amicus brief in Lawrence.

My response was that Bush, as president did not discriminate in his hiring practices, but instead promoted based on merit, and that he had seen, like the dissenting Justices had seen, that the Texas law was a bad law, and decided not to defend it. I then posted the Jeffersonian quote to point out that someone as overtly opposed to sodomy as Jefferson was, believed that what religious beliefs we may hold, are as irrelevant to our civil rights as our opinions of physics or geometry.

Now Toothy, far be it for me to offer assistance in reading and comprehension, after all, I am one of those non-assimilating immigrants you and PJB are convinced will bring down western civilization by failing to properly master the English language as spoken here, but I have to point out that the quote in question, and the civil rights being discussed, are the right of a civil servant to serve, that civil servant being Bush...the subject of this article, and this thread.

In short Toothy, I was talking about Bush, not a right to sodomy here.

Bush's actions as president cannot be driven by his religious beliefs anymore than our selection (or support) of a president should be based on whether that person "profess or renounce this or that religious opinion".

"Luis, the poster never mentioned Bush’s Christianity, nor anyone’s religion."

Now, you spent a considerable amount of time writing what could best be described as Science Fiction here, and I truly hate to ruin your yarn, but I would like to know if you believe that the opposition to homosexuality so prevalent on this site, is not based on the Judeo/Christian beliefs of the people of this country, then what exactly is it based on? And in turn, when the poster stated that he did not believe that Bush had some "profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general", what "profoundly intense conviction" was he referring to, if not his belief that sodomy is a sin in the eyes of God?

Tell me Toothy, what "profoundly intense conviction" do you hold, other than your religious beliefs, which makes you stand against homosexuality?

The Jeffersonian quote, coupled with the well-known statements from Jefferson on the proper punishment for sodomites, fornicators, and adulterers here on Earth, portrays Jefferson as a man of with a "profoundly intense conviction" on the sin of sodomy and other Biblical sins, yet one who understood that the role of a President was to follow and uphold secular laws, and that as citizens, for us to question someone’s ability to serve based on their professing or renouncing "this or that religious opinion" would deny that civil servant the civil right to freely hold religious opinions we all hold.

Thanks for the entertainment, it was almost as clever as that old Abbott and Costello "Who’s On First" routine.

Not really.

[Sabertooth]

of course the quote I posted is irrelevant to "an alleged civil right of sodomy", that's not what's being discussed on this thread at all, it was not what Jefferson was talking about, or what I was discussing with the poster...unless somehow you've come to believe that Bush is a homo.

The thread is about a Defense of Marriage Amendment, and the poster I was responding to questioned Bush's stance on the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general:

Well, I concede your point, because I suddenly realize that "an alleged civil right of sodomy" has nothing at all to do with "the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general."

Universes apart, really, when you think about it, or, don't.

Since the remainder of your post is leveraged on the "contradiction" as you've illuminated it, I'll just concede that there's really no point in reading or replying further.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Some more sophistry from you?

Bush's stance Toothy.

The subject is not on an alleged right to sodomy, the subject is Bush's stance on the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general.

Homosexuality exists outside of and in the absence of a government sanctioned "right to sodomy", and it is condemned by Our Maker even in the face of government approval.

You need to walk away from this subject, it's affecting your already impaired ability to think clearly.

[Sabertooth]

Some more sophistry from you?

Oh, that's it, yes.

[Torie]

As I noted before, Romer is a process decision at bottom. It is highly distinguishable.

[Torie]

The Cinci charter was apparently construed by the state court as merely repealing pro gay legislation, not creating a barrier with a higher hurdle than other legislation to new pro gay legislation. Thus Romer is not applicable, and thus the decision has little to do with being a straw in the wind about court action on gay marriage. In short, it was a poor vehicle to reaching the merits of gay marriage, and as I suggested, I don't think its proponents on the Court want to reach the merits until they can count five votes. We may see in due time whether they can count to five in the future. JMO.

[jwalsh07]

Thanks, I understood that from reading Justice Steven's disclaimer but I am not as adept at language as you are.

But I'm learnin!

[tdadams]

If necessary, an amendment will be put forward, hopefully including a limitation on SCOTUS power as well.

Oh, that's a real good idea. Let's change the fundamental structure of our system because the SCOTUS handed down a decision you don't like. That's real conservative! That smacks of FDR's court packing scheme.

[rwfromkansas]

It is not one decision, but a string of ones where the court has ruled in a wrong manner and furthermore, has not based the decision based on the Constitution, but instead, judge opinions.

The SCOTUS needs to be told it can't create a judicial tyranny anymore.