02/05/2004: Criminally Absurd
Bush Expected to Endorse Amendment on Marriage
from NY Times [firstborn required]
President Bush condemned the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage on Wednesday, and conservative groups said the White House had informed them that the president would soon endorse efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Mr. Bush, in a statement issued by the White House on Wednesday night, stopped just short of explicitly backing a change to the Constitution, but left little doubt that he is heading in that direction.
The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court "is deeply troubling," Mr. Bush said.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Conservative activists who have been in touch with the White House on the issue said they now had no doubt that Mr. Bush had made up his mind to back their call for a constitutional amendment.
"After conversations in recent days with the appropriate people, I have absolutely no doubt the president will in fact take this step in order to ensure that marriage in the United States remains between a man and a woman," said Gary Bauer, the conservative activist who was a Republican presidential candidate in 2000.
Mr. Bauer, who spent the last two days in meetings with conservative groups to develop a strategy for pushing an amendment, said he expected Mr. Bush to make an announcement "sooner rather than later."
Glenn T. Stanton, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said its founder, Dr. James C. Dobson, heard in a conversation on Tuesday night with the president's senior adviser, Karl Rove, that Mr. Bush had decided to back an amendment.
How awful that a "compassionate conservative" and a man who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus would go out of his way to support writing discrimination into the US Constitution. I fear it may actually pass as well. As a voter on the fence about who to support for this coming November, this may be a deciding factor in who gets my vote.
More
Bush Expected to Endorse Amendment on MarriageBy RICHARD W. STEVENSON
ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - President Bush condemned the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage on Wednesday, and conservative groups said the White House had informed them that the president would soon endorse efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Mr. Bush, in a statement issued by the White House on Wednesday night, stopped just short of explicitly backing a change to the Constitution, but left little doubt that he is heading in that direction.
The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court "is deeply troubling," Mr. Bush said.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Conservative activists who have been in touch with the White House on the issue said they now had no doubt that Mr. Bush had made up his mind to back their call for a constitutional amendment.
"After conversations in recent days with the appropriate people, I have absolutely no doubt the president will in fact take this step in order to ensure that marriage in the United States remains between a man and a woman," said Gary Bauer, the conservative activist who was a Republican presidential candidate in 2000.
Mr. Bauer, who spent the last two days in meetings with conservative groups to develop a strategy for pushing an amendment, said he expected Mr. Bush to make an announcement "sooner rather than later."
Glenn T. Stanton, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, said its founder, Dr. James C. Dobson, heard in a conversation on Tuesday night with the president's senior adviser, Karl Rove, that Mr. Bush had decided to back an amendment.
"We heard last night that President Bush is going to come out very clearly advocating the passage of a federal marriage amendment and he is looking for the opportunity to do that," Mr. Stanton said on Wednesday. "It is not a question of if but when."
As the issue has raced through the courts in Massachusetts and other states - and risen to the top of the agenda of conservative groups, thereby becoming a more pressing political issue for him - Mr. Bush has moved step by step since last summer toward supporting a federal constitutional amendment.
White House officials would not confirm that Mr. Bush had made up his mind, but they said they would not discourage reporters from drawing the conclusion that the Massachusetts ruling was exactly what Mr. Bush was thinking of when he warned in his State of the Union address last month about judges ignoring the will of the people on the issue.
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process," Mr. Bush said in the State of the Union speech.
Mr. Bush has tried since becoming governor of Texas to position himself as a new kind of conservative who can appeal to the political center. His statements on gay marriage have always been carefully respectful of gay men and women, and his reluctance to throw his weight behind an amendment reflected in part a desire not to alienate moderate voters.
Many social conservatives, though, have been impatient with the president on the issue, pressing him to take a stand. Mr. Bush's conservative base is especially important to him in this election year because his political strategists say that his re-election could hinge much more on his ability to turn out the vote among conservative voters than on winning over a diminishing pool of more moderate swing voters.
There have been signs of restlessness among conservatives over Mr. Bush's willingness in the past few years to support or agree to substantial increases in government spending. The White House is trying to head off that discontent, and the budget Mr. Bush sent to Congress on Monday calls for sharp restraint on federal spending.
But while economic conservatives and the groups that represent them in Washington tend to make their case loudly and forcefully, White House officials have always been more concerned about religious and social conservatives at the grass-roots level. Mr. Rove has fretted publicly on a number of occasions about Mr. Bush's failure to motivate more evangelical Christians to vote in the 2000 election, saying millions of them stayed home that year.
With the Massachusetts ruling, some conservative leaders said, Mr. Bush and other politicians have little choice politically but to get behind an amendment.
"As of today, there is no gray area at all, no area behind which they can hide," said Sandra Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group.
The constitutional amendment most likely to win the backing of Mr. Bush and conservative groups is one that has already been introduced in Congress. The House version, sponsored by Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
5 Annotations Submitted
Thursday the 5th of February, rafuzo noted:
sure, you're "on the fence".
All the SJC had to do was OK civil unions. They worked in Vermont and have been largely untouchable. What they're doing now amounts to politicizing the issue. It won't pass federal constitutional muster as it clearly violates separation of church and state (for telling churches that from now on, they have a legal obligation to marry whomever comes asking).
Not that a constitutional amendment is a better idea. Frankly the government should get out of the intimate relations business altogether. But of course there's a fat chance of that happening.
Thursday the 5th of February, prof noted:
sure, you're "on the fence".
what's that supposed to mean? am i not allowed to withhold my decision until election day?
All the SJC had to do was OK civil unions.
sure. and we should have made civil water fountains for black people in the south. it's a double standard and its not right.
It won't pass federal constitutional muster as it clearly violates separation of church and state
it does no such thing. it only mandates that towns must issue marriage licenses, not that they must marry in the church. were your argument correct, than divorce would violate the separation. it might not be approved by a centrist court, but that is a nuanced difference from constituionality.
Frankly the government should get out of the intimate relations business altogether.
some sense there.
Thursday the 5th of February, rafuzo noted:
sure. and we should have made civil water fountains for black people in the south. it's a double standard and its not right.
My fault - I should have specified that civil unions would be the only "intimate relation" between two individuals that the state would recognize. Having marriage AND civil union does smack loudly of "separate but equal".
it does no such thing. it only mandates that towns must issue marriage licenses, not that they must marry in the church. were your argument correct, than divorce would violate the separation. it might not be approved by a centrist court, but that is a nuanced difference from constituionality.
I didn't see anything in the decision that said if a church refused to perform a same-sex marriage, they would not be in violation of the law.
I still think Bush's comment about an activist court is valid: the purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the constitutionality of certain laws. That means the extent of their powers is striking down laws that are unfit, not writing their own. They should have left that up to the legislature.
Thursday the 5th of February, Lefty McLeft noted:
The man is an idiot! Plain and simple. I'm a straight white adult male and personally I could care less about the issue. Give them whatever they want, whatever rights are afforded to anyone else, garunteed to them under the protection of the law. Haven't we gotten past disrimination?
Question: So why do the republicains care? (And don't you dare say morality! - i.e. Strom "racist hypocritical self-righteous prick" Thurman)
Answer: The Republician Fear Factory
Fear is the number one plank of their platform.
You're afraid of terrorists, vote for Bush!
You're afraid of gays, vote for Bush!
You're afraid of partial birth abortion, vote for Bush!
The truth: They don't give a f@*k about gays, they want the bigot vote and 90% of voters are straight. They haven't caught Osama Bin Ladin. Partial birth abortion was only legal when the mother's life was at risk, so now she dies but the baby lives and grows up without a mother.
The truth: If you're afraid of knowledge, vote for Bush!
My question: If the republician's want me to be afraid, then why would they ever move toward resolution on anything?
Thursday the 5th of February, Lefty McLeft noted:
And I'm still not convinced that administration didn;t let 9-11 happen! Yeah, I said it. There's no other way in hell that Bush could have ever gotten a 100% approval rating and we would never have been allowed to invade Iraq either. At the very least they benifited and thats not f@*king right!
Hallibertien! Hallifraud! Hallibertien! Hallifraud!
(okay, I need a valium)