Bush Says He Could Support Ban On Gay Marriage

AP ^ | 12/16/03

[11th Earl of Mar]

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But though he has said he would support whatever is "legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president said he endorsed a constitutional amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." At the same time, however, he also seemed to leave the door open to different arrangements in different states.

Bush made the comments in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer, and the network released a transcript of the remarks.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer.

"I do believe in the sanctity of marriage," he added. "It's an important differentiation, but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."

The president also said that he - like any politician - could lose his next run for office, next year's bid for a second term in the White House.

"Everybody's beatable in a democracy," Bush said. "And that's the great thing about a democracy. People get to make that decision. I know how I'm voting."

Bush said he has not decided who would be in his Cabinet and other top administration posts - other than retaining Vice President Dick Cheney - if he is "fortunate enough" to win.

--

[RobbyS]

The Court's power is not presently checked by the other branches. We have got to the point where a single state court can overturn hundreds of years of settled law. As for elections, judges were chosen in most states until the 20th Century, in line with the Republican theory that the laws should not be made by an unelected class.

[xzins]

You said, "The judiciary exists because there needs to be a branch that is free from the corruptive influences that political pandering and lobbying "

The point is that they are not free of political pandering, and that that is their legacy for a century and a half IF NOT LONGER.

Let's admit the mistake, and set about recognizing it as the political office it is.....AND ELECT the justices.

That way we can can the bad ones and only suffer under them for no more than 6 years (depending on the term enacted.)

[applemac_g4]

Bush "could" get behind an FMA. That's the bone designed to get conservative Christians out of the house next November.

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level," he told Sawyer.

This, on the other hand, is the real administration view which means that no FMA will be passed under Bush's watch.

Run right, govern RINO.

[fiscally_right]

If there were popular outrage enough against the decisions of the court, then the congress could impeach them. There certainly is not enough support to change the entire process if there isn't support to impeach the offending judges in the recent cases.

[xzins]

There isn't the political will or desire to do anything. The result is a 9 person black-robed oligarchy running America.

Given that, one wonders the best solution never to have it happen again. That is an elected judiciary.

[RobbyS]

What has taken hold is the doctrine of judicial supremacy, which is confused with the idea of the supremacy of law.
Increasingly the courts are dominated by the legal class, which means that juries are not employed or they are robbed of their power. The O.J. Trial is the only recent one I can think of where a jury exercised the power that the common law tradition confered on it to say what the opinion of the community was. The judges reflect only the opinion of the elite in our society, and our elite every day becomes every more radical in their rejection of traditional values.

[fiscally_right]

The courts have always made unpopular decisions. I would argue that that is their function. I'm sure that after Brown v. Board of Education there were lots of segregationists who made the same arguments you guys are making now. The judges don't represent you because that isn't their job, their job is to interpret the constitution.. Now I'm sure you'll say that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech" was completely ignored by the SCOTUS in the recent CFR case. Well, the Courts have always found reasonable exceptions regarding certain constitutional issues. The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or to slander, or libel. The courts looked at "no law" and added "except" to the end of the amendment. Were they wrong in those cases? I don't think so..

Secondly, if you're objecting to the Texas v Lawrence sodomy case, the courts did, in my opinion, have constitutional grounds to strike down that law, based on prescedent. It has been the opinion of the courts for a long time that there is an implied right to privacy in the words of the fourth amendment, so it would definitely apply to one's consensual bedroom habits..

[hunter112]

Mass. won't recognize a CCW permit issued in Texas, no matter how much I complain. States laws are states laws, are they not?

Probably not a fair comparison. A Texas CCW permit holder may retain his status as a Texas CCW permit holder when he travels to Massachusetts, but he need not be armed. How would one go from being married to being unmarried just because one crossed a state line? A better example is a state driver's license. My WA license entitles me to drive in all fifty states, even though I don't absolutely have to drive a vehicle when I cross state lines.

Civil union is the only answer here. If it is just a creation in the states that see fit to have it, it need not be recognized in states that do not institute it. It may seem to be a difference without a distinction, but courts can divide things that fine. It's an excuse to say to gay couples, go back to the state you were "unioned" in if you want to preserve the status of such.

[AFA-Michigan]

Note that on the Alliance for Marriage web site, the sponsors of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment plainly say that the amendment would NOT prohibit states from adopting Vermont-style "civil unions" or California-style "domestic partnerships -- both fake marriage entities under which individuals involved in homosexual relationships are granted all the legal recognition, status, and benefits of marriage save one: the legal right to call their relationship by the name "marriage."

That's what President Bush was talking about in his contradictory qualifying comments: he consents to these fake marriage relationships being adopted by various states.

That's not just based on the carefully-crafted language he used tonight on TV. It's the clearly-known position of the White House that IF they ever do actually endorse a marriage amendment, rather than say they will "IF NEEDED," it will be an amendment that does NOT prohibit state-level homosexual partnerships and unions.

The fake marriage-in-all-but-name legal creations will undermine the real thing, indirectly, just as certainly as a SCOTUS ruling legalizing so-called homosexual "marriage" by the name "marriage" would directly do so.

[John O]

Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.

That wouldn't happen to be the same dictionary that defines "is" would it?

Since the word marriage is not defined in the Constitution or Ammendments, it is not defined. Although our values and traditions define it as one man joined to one woman we have to realize that our courts are packed with enemies of our values and traditions. Unless we define our terms explicitly in the Constitution and Ammendments the courts will define those same terms in a way that is hostile to us and to the preservation of this union of states

The only way to prevent the court from destroying marriage is to pass and ratify the FMA. We are dealing with the devil here. We can't leave them a loophole.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Please tell me which one of the 50 states have a law that says that they do not recognize marriages from other states? For instance, in one is married in Illinois, then moves to Florida, that couple in Florida is entitled to all the benefits of marriage that every other married couple enjoys.

"Sorry, Mrs. Smith, you are not entitled to be included on Mr. Smith's health insurance plan because you live in Florida now and you were married in Illinois. You see, we don't recognize Illinois marriages. But if you were married in Indiana, that would be a different story."

If you can tell me which states do not give people married in other states full marital priviledges in their own state, you might have a point. But you can't name one.

There have been numerous articles posted on FR over the years detailing why a constitutional amendment is needed to keep one state from imposing gay marriage on the other states. I suggest an FR search.

I am no scholar but I believe the following is the basis for each state recognizing marriages from other states.

Article IV of the US Constitution:

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

[puroresu]

#####This is a subject not appropriate for a constitutional amendment. More like political posturing.#####

No, we wouldn't want to desecrate the Constitution by adding an amendment via the appropriate constitutional ratification process. That might threaten all the amendments the "liberal" judges have added to the Constitution over the years on such issues as school prayer, Nativity scenes, nude dancing, abortion, sodomy, reapportionment, political speech, and the death penalty, not to mention threatening future court-created amendments such as the ones mandating gay marriage and nullifying the 2nd amendment (coming soon courtesy of our five or six robed masters).

Besides, an amendment banning gay marriage would ban something all fifty states already ban. Federal fiats are supposed to force states and localities into obeying the centralized government in Washington, like the aforementioned rulings on abortion and sodomy did. It's far better that we sit here and let some appointed judges impose gay marriage on the fifty states rather than risk doing harm to state's rights by ratifying an amendment, with the states' consent, allowing them to do what they already want to do.

[ZULU]

Bush should UNQUALIFIEDLY state he WILL suport a ban on sodomitic unions.
We should all write him about our feelings on this subject.

While you are at it, let him know what you think about the "Meathead" Ridge. Ridge is an anti-gun liberal from Pennsylvania who support legalizing MORE illegal aliens, and stopping the scrutiny of Islamic immigrants and visitors - people who should be BANNED from entry to the U.S.

Bush's appointment of this dork as head of the National Security Agency was as misplaced as putting leftist liberla elitist Tom Kean of Jersey in charge of examining 9-1-1.


Also, tell Bush what YOU think about his FAILURE to stop the army of illegal aliens who are sweeping across OUR borders into OUR country every night. He is supposed to reprsent US, not THEM. WE elected him, THEY didn't. He should get off Representative Trantino's back (R-Colorado) and support his efforts to stop these invaders from stealing OUR country.

[xzins]

You miss the point.

The point is that the words of the constitution say only so much. They should not be extended or shortened to accomodate someone's political desires. Thomas Sowell said it neatly yesterday, to the effect that it really doesn't matter if you like or don't like campaign finance reform when the constitution says "Congress shall make NO LAW (that's NO, NADA, KEIN Law)....abridging the freedom of speech." That is clear. Congress, on the other hand, DID MAKE A LAW that abridges freedom of speech.

The courts are now POLITICAL institutions. They should have to suffer the fate of political bodies; that is, they should have to stand for election.

[Polybius]

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If that's what Massachusetts wants, let Massachusetts have it.

The voters of Massachusetts created the political climate that made that Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling possible. Let them live with the consequences.

Let's not embarrass the U.S. Constitution with the subject of gay marriage.

[Right Wing Professor]

You seem to have posted every cliché that you know, but I still don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

[jwalsh07]

This issue really brings the bigots out of the woodwork!

To oppose homosexual marriage brands one a bigot?

Do you limit the redefintion of marriage to couples who engage in sex acts or can anybody participate in both sexual and platonic marriage in numbers which accords with their transendental liberty rights as described by Kennedy in Lawrence v Texas?

[jwalsh07]

Let's not embarrass the U.S. Constitution with the subject of gay marriage.

Sadly that will be necessary because the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution has a minimum of 5 votes on the SCOTUS at Mount Olympus for holding that the laws legislated by the Mass SJC will have to be recognised by all other states.

So , in essence what we are left with is 5 hard left judges in Massachusetts making the decision on the redefinition of marriage for 300 million Americans.

My advice is that the amendment is the lesser of two evils and thats why I will support it vehemently.

[Right Wing Professor]

MatthewMarkLukeJohn Since Dec 17, 2003

Sign up, and then immediately call anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage a bigot.