President Bush on NJ Same Sex Ruling: "another activist court
President Bush on NJ Same Sex Ruling: "another activist court"
October 26, 2006 4:23 PM
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: Campaigning in Iowa today, President Bush said that in New Jersey yesterday there was "another activist court" issuing a ruling that "raises doubts about the institution of marriage."
"I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended," he said.
Bush called marriage a "fundamental institution of civilization."
Yesterday, a Cheney official said the Vice President will not weigh in on the New Jersey decision and said the President sets the policy and Cheney supports the President.
Vice President Cheney said on the campaign trail in 2004 that the issue of gay marriage is one "that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide."
"That that's how it ought to best be handled," Cheney said in Iowa. He followed that by saying the President sets the policy for the administration - and we know that the President came out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment this year.
Bush on gay marriage:
The gay marriage debate is not one the President frequently wades into. On June 5, 2006, President Bush called marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization" and said he strongly supports an amendment that would define it as between a man and a woman. He presented his support for the amendment in the framework of activist judges who have made it necessary for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage and strengthening families.
"Our policy should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure," Bush said.
Bush indicated in an interview with ABC News in 2004 that he supported civil unions. "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,” he said. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
October 26, 2006 in White House | Permalink | User Comments (16)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6576953
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush on NJ Same Sex Ruling: "another activist court":
User Comments
How about a ban against presidents that misleads this nation into a war of choice - a personal choice at that, a president whose decisions has destroyed the lives of so many innocent people, how about it if we had applied our main focus on those who attacked this country instead of diverting it to Iraq, how about having the maximum resources to stand down some real threats like North Korea and Iran, how about a band against representatives who talk about faith one day and try to seduce young boys the next, how about a ban against hypocrites. With those bans we'd could really achieve a lot of good for this country rather than focusing on matters such as if the vice president’s daughter can marry her partner or not. We are in a mess now because we have listen to these people and believed what they have said; when the fact of the matter is; if they had any real answers we would know it by now; because things would be getting better instead of getting worse. All Americans - republicans, democrats’ independents etc should look each other in the face and say lets do some meaningful things for this country and this world that will make life better for everyone! People have many different problems – some by choice and others by no choice at all. Short people, over weight people, even women still face difficulties in this country. We are in 2006 and none of this stuff should be going on today except there are those who are so hell bent on keeping such things alive - they even mock people with debilitating diseases – as hard as that is to believe. We’ve got to recognize wrong when we see it and try to make it right - How about it? Let’s start today.
Posted by: T. HINES | Oct 26, 2006 5:46:18 PM
The concept of independent judiciary is a foreign concept, I guess.
Other interpretation is anything Bushy believes is sacred, all else is evil. But then we knew that already.
And I guess all that crap in 2004 about civil unions was just blowing smoke.
Not the America I grew up in, and not the America I served.
Keep bashing til the election republicons . . . you've got 12 days to hurl every bigoted (and apparently racist ala tennessee) insult you can.
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2006 5:49:14 PM
Same sex marriage should be banned in all 50 states.What you do in your private life is up to you,but even the Bible talks agaist same sex marriage.And thats the way it should be.If you wanna be gay and be married to the same sex, go move to another Country..
Posted by: Bert | Oct 26, 2006 5:55:21 PM
i agree with the president. if the courts dont support the majority of citizens about keeping a merrage between a man and a women then those judges need to be removed. they are confusing the children of our country.oh and by the way they are not gays they are homosexuals and lisbons and some of the are practiceing perverts
Posted by: ed | Oct 26, 2006 6:06:55 PM
I guess the President really does not believe that all people in the USA Have the same rights and that seperate but equal is not equal.This is not activist Judges these are Judges that understand our Constitution. This is something Bush has never understood. He and all the people who hate this equal rights for all of our citizens. Sorry Guys this is Still America and not Bushland
Posted by: David | Oct 26, 2006 9:09:51 PM
Way to go New Jersey. Hope other states will follow. Equal rights for all, isn't that what it's all about. And we need to keep the bible out of politics. A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority. The courts did not say that one should go and marry in a church. "Religious persecution has come about because others are too afraid to learn about something new..."
Posted by: Denise | Oct 26, 2006 10:58:07 PM
Nice comments T Hines.
However, you forget that us Americans are inherently lazy and we won't do anything unless we can make some money out of it, or there's some sort of sex invlolved.
We're happiest laying in our messy, crappy beds.
And the last I checked no one is handing out money or sex to anyone for being responsible citizens.
(Vote Robot)
Posted by: Bender | Oct 26, 2006 11:03:37 PM
I would like to ask all of those individuals that believe there should not be legal gay marriage one thing to start, Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? I belive the Constitution grants us FREEDOMS not take them away. We are under the rule of LAW not the rule of God!!! If you do not belive this then maybe you are not a true AMERICAN. There was no such thing as a marriage license until whites wanted to marry slaves during the 1800's. Look it up, did George Washington need a marriage license? Or Thomas Jefferson? I bet you will be amazed that they did NOT.
Posted by: Derik Lane | Oct 27, 2006 9:24:56 AM
IF WE DON'T STAND TOGETHER AS A NATION AND KEEP OUR VALUES SUCH AS
THE SANCTITIVITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN, THERE WILL BE NO MORE VALUES. THE WORLD IS CONFUSING ENOUGH WITH SOME STRAIGHT COUPLES NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR END. WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON DECENT CHRISTIAN BEHAVOIR AS IN THE BOOK OF ROMANS, THAN GIVING SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO SIN. NOMATTER
HOW OTHERS TRY TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE, IT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT BE. AND I MUST ADMIT, I'M NO BIG FAN OF THE PRESIDENT, WHO ALLOWS THIS RIDICULOUS WAR TO GO ON BUT ON GAY MARRIAGE...HE HAS MY VOTE.
AND HOW ABOUT SLAPPING THESE BIG
INTERNET COMPANIES WITH BIG FINES
WHO ALLOWS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WEB-SITES? HOW ABOUT NOT ALLOWING ANY CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN IN CHAT ROOMS? OUR NATION HAS ALOT TO FIGURE OUT AND CLEAN UP!
Posted by: RHONDA WASHINGTON | Oct 27, 2006 9:55:45 AM
I agree with Rhonda. In fact, we need to get more of the bible into our everyday lives. To start, we at least should enact the following: -- A law prohibiting planting two different types of seed in your garden, or wearing a garment made of two types of fabric (Lev 19:19)
-- Allow women to be concubines (sex slaves/mistresses) (Lev 19:20)
-- The death penalty for those who commit adultery (Lev 20:10) or curse their mother or father (Lev 20:10)
-- A law outlawing shaving one's head or beard (Lev 21:5) or wearing a tattoo or piercing (Lev 19:28)
-- A law prohibiting anyone from marrying a non-virgin or divorced woman (Lev 21:7 and 13) (now that would preserve the sanctity of marriage!)
-- A law prohibiting marriage outside your own race (Lev 21:14) (if you’re mixed race, you would be prohibited from marrying)
-- A law prohibiting work on the Sabbath (Lev 23:3) (i.e., everything, all businesses, power plants, water works, police departments, etc., must be shut down on the Sabbath, because otherwise the penalty, according to the Bible, is death)
-- A law making polygamy okay. (Gen 29)
-- Laws to discourage making money (Mark 10:25)
-- A law requiring women to wear hats or coverings when praying (1Cor 11:15)
And that's just the start. Of course, there are other biblical passages which are meant to be ignored, like
-- 1 Sam 18: 1-4, 1 Sam 20:41-42, 2 Sam 1:23, 26-27, which seems to indicate that David and Jonathan were gay partners
-- The passages where David, the man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14), had homosexual relationships (see above), committed adultery and murder (2 Sam 11-12)
Posted by: Peter | Oct 27, 2006 11:04:34 AM
What about the Christian values of the new testament? Jesus had a lot to say about a new covenant wit the people - a new commandment to love one another.
As a gay man, I am not asking for your acceptance or even your understanding. But I and others am and will continue to DEMAND equal representation in our nation. We pay the same taxes, we have the same birthright, and we share in the responsibilties to our country and our fellow citizens. And, for that reason, we deserve the same benefits.
That is why any movement to establish majority prejudices in our founding documents reeks to the high heavens you claim to seek.
I wil NOT let you claim the mantle of Christianity. You know nothing about me, or my faith, or the goodness that God has placed in me.
I can tell from your message that you are a good person and that you care very deeply; but you are not the only one and your beliefs are not so strong that they can cancel out mine.
I also worry for our nation. We have an administration who has no respect for the core values of my faith. They may as well be asking, "Who would Jesus torture?" than "What would Jesus do?"
We must learn to live together, but that will never happen if the solution is to slamming the door on those who don't believe exactly as you do. That is a grave, grave threat to our nation. Doing that would harm us more than any terrorist ever could.
Posted by: John | Oct 27, 2006 11:22:08 AM
Since january 2000 & still counting the bush addministraition has been setting new standards for contridictions and that word should be the foundation for there party.First they play with your religous standings then its are you an american now its what god would want.New Jersey has taken a bold step to give human beings a choice to go public with their union.Now I feel you should be with whom ever makes your time here as plesent and happy with all the love anyone deserves,cause with all of our vices time is a luxury that won't be contradicted not even for a vote.
Posted by: Warren | Oct 27, 2006 11:34:16 AM
HEY ED
RE:OCT 26, 2006 6:06:55PM
A. LEARN TO SPELL
B. RESEARCH WILL PROVE THAT THERE ARE MORE HETROSEXUAL PERVERTS THAN THERE ARE HOMOSEXUAL PERVERTS!
Posted by: RICK | Oct 27, 2006 12:15:14 PM
Didn't the court essentially throw the case back to the legislature? Isn't that what a Republican would want? I guess pulling out the moth-eaten "activist court" phrase is just another way to pander to the base. Don't explain, Don't illuminate - there's no time for that before the election.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 27, 2006 12:24:05 PM
Hei Bert
Rhonda wrote:
"WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON DECENT CHRISTIAN BEHAVOIR"
Decent Christian Behavior is different than Christians with Decent Behavior....
It's obvious in your post and other so called christians post around here that although you might know what is a Decent Christian Behavior you fail miserabily on being a Christians with Decent Behavior.
Posted by: Marcus | Oct 27, 2006 1:59:08 PM
OK, first of all the constitution states that congress shall not make a national religion, see Church of England. It does not say separation of church and state. Also David was not gay and that is insane to assume that. Also the new testament in 1 Cor. chapter 6 does state that homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. Now if the country wants to allow civil unions through a justice of the peace then the country can decide to do that. However we do not have the right to force the Church to accept gay marriage. The gay community doesn't just want civil unions. They want the Church to accept sin. That will never happen. Also Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue. Being gay is a preferrence. One can't help what color they are or gender and therefore should not be discriminated against. However if you make a choice to live your life a certain way or do certain things you leave yourself open to be criticized. Also for the person quoting levitical law, We do not follow levitical law since Jesus died on the Cross and Rose again. Also 80% of Americans and 97% of the framers of the constitution professed to be Christians. Also more than 2/3rds of Americans support a Gay Marriage Ban.
October 26, 2006 4:23 PM
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: Campaigning in Iowa today, President Bush said that in New Jersey yesterday there was "another activist court" issuing a ruling that "raises doubts about the institution of marriage."
"I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended," he said.
Bush called marriage a "fundamental institution of civilization."
Yesterday, a Cheney official said the Vice President will not weigh in on the New Jersey decision and said the President sets the policy and Cheney supports the President.
Vice President Cheney said on the campaign trail in 2004 that the issue of gay marriage is one "that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide."
"That that's how it ought to best be handled," Cheney said in Iowa. He followed that by saying the President sets the policy for the administration - and we know that the President came out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment this year.
Bush on gay marriage:
The gay marriage debate is not one the President frequently wades into. On June 5, 2006, President Bush called marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization" and said he strongly supports an amendment that would define it as between a man and a woman. He presented his support for the amendment in the framework of activist judges who have made it necessary for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage and strengthening families.
"Our policy should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure," Bush said.
Bush indicated in an interview with ABC News in 2004 that he supported civil unions. "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,” he said. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
October 26, 2006 in White House | Permalink | User Comments (16)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6576953
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush on NJ Same Sex Ruling: "another activist court":
User Comments
How about a ban against presidents that misleads this nation into a war of choice - a personal choice at that, a president whose decisions has destroyed the lives of so many innocent people, how about it if we had applied our main focus on those who attacked this country instead of diverting it to Iraq, how about having the maximum resources to stand down some real threats like North Korea and Iran, how about a band against representatives who talk about faith one day and try to seduce young boys the next, how about a ban against hypocrites. With those bans we'd could really achieve a lot of good for this country rather than focusing on matters such as if the vice president’s daughter can marry her partner or not. We are in a mess now because we have listen to these people and believed what they have said; when the fact of the matter is; if they had any real answers we would know it by now; because things would be getting better instead of getting worse. All Americans - republicans, democrats’ independents etc should look each other in the face and say lets do some meaningful things for this country and this world that will make life better for everyone! People have many different problems – some by choice and others by no choice at all. Short people, over weight people, even women still face difficulties in this country. We are in 2006 and none of this stuff should be going on today except there are those who are so hell bent on keeping such things alive - they even mock people with debilitating diseases – as hard as that is to believe. We’ve got to recognize wrong when we see it and try to make it right - How about it? Let’s start today.
Posted by: T. HINES | Oct 26, 2006 5:46:18 PM
The concept of independent judiciary is a foreign concept, I guess.
Other interpretation is anything Bushy believes is sacred, all else is evil. But then we knew that already.
And I guess all that crap in 2004 about civil unions was just blowing smoke.
Not the America I grew up in, and not the America I served.
Keep bashing til the election republicons . . . you've got 12 days to hurl every bigoted (and apparently racist ala tennessee) insult you can.
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2006 5:49:14 PM
Same sex marriage should be banned in all 50 states.What you do in your private life is up to you,but even the Bible talks agaist same sex marriage.And thats the way it should be.If you wanna be gay and be married to the same sex, go move to another Country..
Posted by: Bert | Oct 26, 2006 5:55:21 PM
i agree with the president. if the courts dont support the majority of citizens about keeping a merrage between a man and a women then those judges need to be removed. they are confusing the children of our country.oh and by the way they are not gays they are homosexuals and lisbons and some of the are practiceing perverts
Posted by: ed | Oct 26, 2006 6:06:55 PM
I guess the President really does not believe that all people in the USA Have the same rights and that seperate but equal is not equal.This is not activist Judges these are Judges that understand our Constitution. This is something Bush has never understood. He and all the people who hate this equal rights for all of our citizens. Sorry Guys this is Still America and not Bushland
Posted by: David | Oct 26, 2006 9:09:51 PM
Way to go New Jersey. Hope other states will follow. Equal rights for all, isn't that what it's all about. And we need to keep the bible out of politics. A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority. The courts did not say that one should go and marry in a church. "Religious persecution has come about because others are too afraid to learn about something new..."
Posted by: Denise | Oct 26, 2006 10:58:07 PM
Nice comments T Hines.
However, you forget that us Americans are inherently lazy and we won't do anything unless we can make some money out of it, or there's some sort of sex invlolved.
We're happiest laying in our messy, crappy beds.
And the last I checked no one is handing out money or sex to anyone for being responsible citizens.
(Vote Robot)
Posted by: Bender | Oct 26, 2006 11:03:37 PM
I would like to ask all of those individuals that believe there should not be legal gay marriage one thing to start, Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? I belive the Constitution grants us FREEDOMS not take them away. We are under the rule of LAW not the rule of God!!! If you do not belive this then maybe you are not a true AMERICAN. There was no such thing as a marriage license until whites wanted to marry slaves during the 1800's. Look it up, did George Washington need a marriage license? Or Thomas Jefferson? I bet you will be amazed that they did NOT.
Posted by: Derik Lane | Oct 27, 2006 9:24:56 AM
IF WE DON'T STAND TOGETHER AS A NATION AND KEEP OUR VALUES SUCH AS
THE SANCTITIVITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN, THERE WILL BE NO MORE VALUES. THE WORLD IS CONFUSING ENOUGH WITH SOME STRAIGHT COUPLES NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR END. WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON DECENT CHRISTIAN BEHAVOIR AS IN THE BOOK OF ROMANS, THAN GIVING SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO SIN. NOMATTER
HOW OTHERS TRY TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE, IT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT BE. AND I MUST ADMIT, I'M NO BIG FAN OF THE PRESIDENT, WHO ALLOWS THIS RIDICULOUS WAR TO GO ON BUT ON GAY MARRIAGE...HE HAS MY VOTE.
AND HOW ABOUT SLAPPING THESE BIG
INTERNET COMPANIES WITH BIG FINES
WHO ALLOWS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WEB-SITES? HOW ABOUT NOT ALLOWING ANY CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN IN CHAT ROOMS? OUR NATION HAS ALOT TO FIGURE OUT AND CLEAN UP!
Posted by: RHONDA WASHINGTON | Oct 27, 2006 9:55:45 AM
I agree with Rhonda. In fact, we need to get more of the bible into our everyday lives. To start, we at least should enact the following: -- A law prohibiting planting two different types of seed in your garden, or wearing a garment made of two types of fabric (Lev 19:19)
-- Allow women to be concubines (sex slaves/mistresses) (Lev 19:20)
-- The death penalty for those who commit adultery (Lev 20:10) or curse their mother or father (Lev 20:10)
-- A law outlawing shaving one's head or beard (Lev 21:5) or wearing a tattoo or piercing (Lev 19:28)
-- A law prohibiting anyone from marrying a non-virgin or divorced woman (Lev 21:7 and 13) (now that would preserve the sanctity of marriage!)
-- A law prohibiting marriage outside your own race (Lev 21:14) (if you’re mixed race, you would be prohibited from marrying)
-- A law prohibiting work on the Sabbath (Lev 23:3) (i.e., everything, all businesses, power plants, water works, police departments, etc., must be shut down on the Sabbath, because otherwise the penalty, according to the Bible, is death)
-- A law making polygamy okay. (Gen 29)
-- Laws to discourage making money (Mark 10:25)
-- A law requiring women to wear hats or coverings when praying (1Cor 11:15)
And that's just the start. Of course, there are other biblical passages which are meant to be ignored, like
-- 1 Sam 18: 1-4, 1 Sam 20:41-42, 2 Sam 1:23, 26-27, which seems to indicate that David and Jonathan were gay partners
-- The passages where David, the man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14), had homosexual relationships (see above), committed adultery and murder (2 Sam 11-12)
Posted by: Peter | Oct 27, 2006 11:04:34 AM
What about the Christian values of the new testament? Jesus had a lot to say about a new covenant wit the people - a new commandment to love one another.
As a gay man, I am not asking for your acceptance or even your understanding. But I and others am and will continue to DEMAND equal representation in our nation. We pay the same taxes, we have the same birthright, and we share in the responsibilties to our country and our fellow citizens. And, for that reason, we deserve the same benefits.
That is why any movement to establish majority prejudices in our founding documents reeks to the high heavens you claim to seek.
I wil NOT let you claim the mantle of Christianity. You know nothing about me, or my faith, or the goodness that God has placed in me.
I can tell from your message that you are a good person and that you care very deeply; but you are not the only one and your beliefs are not so strong that they can cancel out mine.
I also worry for our nation. We have an administration who has no respect for the core values of my faith. They may as well be asking, "Who would Jesus torture?" than "What would Jesus do?"
We must learn to live together, but that will never happen if the solution is to slamming the door on those who don't believe exactly as you do. That is a grave, grave threat to our nation. Doing that would harm us more than any terrorist ever could.
Posted by: John | Oct 27, 2006 11:22:08 AM
Since january 2000 & still counting the bush addministraition has been setting new standards for contridictions and that word should be the foundation for there party.First they play with your religous standings then its are you an american now its what god would want.New Jersey has taken a bold step to give human beings a choice to go public with their union.Now I feel you should be with whom ever makes your time here as plesent and happy with all the love anyone deserves,cause with all of our vices time is a luxury that won't be contradicted not even for a vote.
Posted by: Warren | Oct 27, 2006 11:34:16 AM
HEY ED
RE:OCT 26, 2006 6:06:55PM
A. LEARN TO SPELL
B. RESEARCH WILL PROVE THAT THERE ARE MORE HETROSEXUAL PERVERTS THAN THERE ARE HOMOSEXUAL PERVERTS!
Posted by: RICK | Oct 27, 2006 12:15:14 PM
Didn't the court essentially throw the case back to the legislature? Isn't that what a Republican would want? I guess pulling out the moth-eaten "activist court" phrase is just another way to pander to the base. Don't explain, Don't illuminate - there's no time for that before the election.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 27, 2006 12:24:05 PM
Hei Bert
Rhonda wrote:
"WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON DECENT CHRISTIAN BEHAVOIR"
Decent Christian Behavior is different than Christians with Decent Behavior....
It's obvious in your post and other so called christians post around here that although you might know what is a Decent Christian Behavior you fail miserabily on being a Christians with Decent Behavior.
Posted by: Marcus | Oct 27, 2006 1:59:08 PM
OK, first of all the constitution states that congress shall not make a national religion, see Church of England. It does not say separation of church and state. Also David was not gay and that is insane to assume that. Also the new testament in 1 Cor. chapter 6 does state that homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. Now if the country wants to allow civil unions through a justice of the peace then the country can decide to do that. However we do not have the right to force the Church to accept gay marriage. The gay community doesn't just want civil unions. They want the Church to accept sin. That will never happen. Also Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue. Being gay is a preferrence. One can't help what color they are or gender and therefore should not be discriminated against. However if you make a choice to live your life a certain way or do certain things you leave yourself open to be criticized. Also for the person quoting levitical law, We do not follow levitical law since Jesus died on the Cross and Rose again. Also 80% of Americans and 97% of the framers of the constitution professed to be Christians. Also more than 2/3rds of Americans support a Gay Marriage Ban.
posted by EZHOMUZIC at 12:57 PM
1 comments
