Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives

MSNBC.com ^ | 3:05 p.m. ET Oct. 26, 2004 | The Associated Press

[Ed Current]

Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush’s tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute….

[Ed Current]

The excerpt is per F.R. policy and not to exceed 100 words.

Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny by Ron Paul Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president's signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

In spite of the indifference of many traditional (IRKED) family conservatives and the faux conservative press toward H.R. 3313, it passed by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 194 7/22/2004 3:50pm: (Roll no. 410). Most everyone heard about the FMA, while H.R. 3313 was and continues to be virtually ignored. To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 has to be the most despised clause in the U.S. Constitution, and Federalist No. 81 which expounds upon the clause, must be the most despised Federalist Paper.

Equally despised:

• The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.

• The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates

Matthew J. Franck, Chairman And Associate Professor Of Political Science, Radford University before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. January 29, 1998, Congress, the Court, and the Constitution:

My opposition to amending the Constitution to deal with our difficulties is not rooted in mere reverence for the framers' handiwork if evidence shows its insufficiency in some respect. No institutions crafted by human beings can be truly permanent, never requiring any alterations. Yet the Constitution, as Joseph Story said, was ''reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title.'' Before we take risks with a structure whose ''foundations are solid'' and whose ''compartments are beautiful, as well as useful'' (again Story's words),(see footnote 155) we should explore the building thoroughly and be certain we have not overlooked any of the useful features it already contains.

Yet, even the most despicable and overlooked clause can be utilized when necessary:

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

 

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 - Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).

Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

 

 

 

[kingu]

My, my, look at how the MSM is trying to paint Bush as not being conservative enough. Yup, they're hoping that a million religious conservatives sit on their hands and don't vote again this time.

[snooker]

Plant the story at noon, report on the story irking conservatives by 8PM. Odd.

Do you think they want to surpress the conservative vote?

Vote.

[Michael Goldsberry]

You feel strongly about this issue, don't you?

[mrsmith]

Wow, MSNBC and AP say Bush isn't conservative enough.

BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...

[Solamente]

I didn't read any of the above, but I say give commonlaw or civil union to 'em. The newspapers and courts will put gays through the same wringer the rest of us go through! And I suspect that the day-inday-out lurid details will lead to a Constitutional Amendment.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

He may not be the smartest guy to ever run for President, but at least he wants to solve the judicial tyranny issue. He can favor civil unions all he wants (idiot), but as long as the decision is made by the people and their representatives and NOT the courts, we're okay. It doesn't make it easier for me to vote for him, but I'll still do it.

Regarding the Marriage Protection Act: I support it, though I do not think we need both it and the FMA. The FMA will get the state COURTS out of the legislating business as well. The MPA will keep the Federal courts from misinterpreting the FMA.

[Grampa Dave]

Jim Rob re anyone supporting Kerry is no conservative


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257816/posts?page=20#20

I have a hard time getting by anyone who would support Kerry. He's a UN loving, commie loving, America hating traitor. Can't get by that. He's also an abortionist pig. Can't put lipstick on that. He's a tax and spend Massachusetts liberal. In fact, even more liberal than Kennedy. Can't get by that. And he's a fraud and a liar to boot. Anyone who would even remotely consider Kerry as presidential material is NO conservative.



20 posted on 10/26/2004 1:52:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

So Ed do you support GW?

[the invisib1e hand]

we covered this already.

[Diddle E. Squat]

We will have 3 USSC replacements in the next 4 years. Sit at home or don't vote for Bush and we lose the culture war for at least another generation.

Don't make a dumb decision.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Don't be so sure it won't work. Bush chose very bad wording. And he is sounding like Kerry when he claims that there is a difference between marriages and civil unions. There is no difference. The FMA returns the issue to the state legislatures, that's what I think he is saying. But he sounds like he supports civil unions just like Kerry, and he concedes the entire gay marriage issue by using the term "rights" instead of "benefits."

[gitmo]

I would like to see our governments get out of the marriage business altogether.

[Ed Current]

You feel strongly about this issue, don't you?

AEI - Publications Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility. Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,Friday, July 25, 2003

Judicial Dictatorship Everyone talks about the Supreme Court, but no one ever does anything about it.

[sinkspur]

You have come here to sow dissent.

I suspect you'll be gone after Bush wins next Tuesday.

[finallyatexan]

Doesn't matter what you say or do , someone isn't going to like it -

[jocon307]

"I didn't read any of the above, but I say give commonlaw or civil union to 'em"

DITTOS. Not about the commonlaw, because I'm not sure how that works. My solution would be the old Ed Koch (I think it was his) solution, let people form some kind of "Household" partnerships. Take the sex out of it, this could benefit many,many people, especially the elderly. And keep Marriage, Marriage.

I do not think you will ever get a majority to re-illegalize sodomy.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If you want to give 'em civil unions then get a state legislature to agree to it uncoerced by the courts.

[OldFriend]

They just can't make up their mind, he's a right wing extremist or he's too liberal.

[Tempest]

*SIGH* Sheer stupidity. I wonder how many conservatives will fall for the machinations of MSM.

[Ed Current]

Excellent post!