Bush says judges making 'his' case for amendment barring same-sex marriage

[truthpusher]

http://www.wivb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3086930

Bush says judges making his case for amendment barring same-sex marriage
----------------------------------
WHITE HOUSE President Bush says a California court ruling is helping make his case for amending the Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

(snip)

But the president told a news conference that the issue should be decided by the people, not judges.

Last year, Bush announced his backing for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. He said a "sacred" institution is under attack from activist judges.

However, since winning re-election, he's said little on the subject, and his congressional allies have acknowledged they lack the votes in Congress to prevail.

But Bush told reporters the more that judges issue rulings on the issue, the more people will come around to his view.

complete story:
http://www.wivb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3086930

[meegbear]

1. should be decided by the people, not judges

you mean like elections?

[Technowitch]

2. A 'sacred' institution ought not result in over 1100 rights & privileges!

If the whole reason for their argument is based on a certain religious belief (and not even a universal one!), then the gov't has NO business issuing 'marriage' licenses in the first place.

Yeesh...

[Hobarticus]

3. The 'people' have proven themselves to be idiots...

Thankfully California has judges who know better.

This is the modus operandi of the GOP....they don't go by fact or reason, but by their 'gut', law be damned.

[HockeyMom]

6. Contract

A civil marriage license is a contract, Mr. Bush. It is not sacred. It is not holy. It is most certainly NOT A SACRAMENT. Are atheists receiving the holy sacrament of matrimony in a county courthouse? I am sure they would be very happy to know that.

That is the problem with all this. They cannot keep religion OUT of it. If I could find a way to write to dear Mr. Bush, I would tell him that I do NOT consider my marriage of 30 years to be SACRED, HOLY or anything else HE says it is.

[punpirate]

4. Since...

... most of these judgments have depended upon the strength of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, that would mean that Bush's "case" involves a diminution of the 14th Amendment.

I would hope that the portion of black community supporting him in his views takes particular notice of what that might mean in the future for them absent the issue of gay marriage.

[8misyears]

5. Our forefathers...

would vomit if they knew the White House was becoming a church.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi 8misyears!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[UCLA Dem]

7. Laws and the Judiciary are for protecting minority groups..

Was the supreme court playing activist judges when they abolished segregation?? etc.

[Terran]

23. Yes! What's your point??

Just kidding. But you know that's how a large portion of the country would reply if they had to think about it honestly. Especially those south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[Deja Q]

8. And what does Mary Cheney think about it all?

[gratuitous]

9. Republican hypocrisy at its finest

So, Stupidhead thinks that people, not judges, should decide who gets rights in our society and who doesn't.

Does he propose putting the right of accused persons not to incriminate themselves up to a popular vote? If not, why not? That doesn't seem to be a very popular "right." How about the constitutional guarantee of the people to be secure in their property and papers from unreasonable governmental search and seizure? Should that be put to a popular vote?

And while Stupidhead is running down judges (today), isn't it curious that he trusts juries to mete out the death penalty to convicted criminals, but he doesn't trust them to decide the appropriate monetary punishment for corporations that lie, cheat, steal and kill people?

So many different positions for Stupidhead to take. Does he carry a little wallet-sized reminder card to tell him when it's safe to trust the judgment of the hoi polloi and when it's not?

[OTownGuy]

10. I posted on this

If the "will of the people" had been heard, this country would not have made it past 1861. The SOuth would still be an agricultural economy w/ slaves. The people have NOOOOOOOO business voting on social issues.

[napi21]

11. So what is Shrub going to say when the SCOUTS votes SSM OK?

Assuming the California Judge was correct, and laws banning SSM are unconstitutional, is Shrub still going to call them activist judges?

I doubt there's enough support across the country to ammend our Constitution.

[Kadie]

12. WTF "the issue should be decided by the people" and

"the more people will come around to his view"

First of all, if you really think issues should be decided by the people then stop f**king with social security. Oh wait, the people need to come around to your view. OK. Let's just get rid of the judges, finish throwing away the voting system, and all hail king george.

What an idiot.

end rant

[MissWaverly]

13. does any one see the contradiction here

first * says that the people should decide.

Then * says that the more the judge makes a ruling the more the people will support what he says.

This is Bush style of governing.

Say the people can decide but they really don't.
Adopt an unpopular course of action.
Refuse to change.
Repeat over and over.
People when then accept this.

this is ludicrous.

[designforce]

14. Protect people from the 'majority'

Isn't this what the judiciary is supposed to do, protect the rights of the people from the tyranny of the majority? Apparently, those who currently hold the power have not learned from history. I can't wait for the people to rectify the mistake of this last election.

Protect us all from the tyranny of the 'moral majority' (actually a vocal minority) and the zealots in positions of power.

[underpants]

19. Well said

and Welcome to DU :hi:

[guitar man]

15. since when

do "the people" decide civil rights issues anyway? I don't give a shit what the majority of 'murkans think, letting them decide who gets what civil rights is dictatorship by that majority. The Constitution enumerates our rights and they aren't to be tampered with by popular whim.

[TankLV]

16. How does MY marriage decision affect YOUR marriage, asswipe?

Make him explain that one.

Whatever decision I make regarding to marry or no marry has NO affect on any other person's marriage.

That is a fact.

[underpants]

18. "WHITE HOUSE President Bush" I love that

He isn't my President so that fits

[underpants]

20. So he is declaring a sort of victory in a fight he gave up

Yeah that's par for the course.

[Catfight]

21. Is this article from the 1800's? Out with the new, in with the old bigoted

ways of the republicians. Racist Radio is taking over.

[Chelsea Patriot]

22. Activist Republican Judges!

Strange isn't it that the MA & CA Activist Judges issuing these rulings are all Republicans?

One could almost think that this Gay Marriage issue is a co-ordinated set-up by The Republican Party.

The Republican Judiciary issues pro same sex rulings and then * and the Republican Legislators whip the country up into a frenzy over Gays and judicial activism.

Of course, the Democratic Party never draws attention to this curiosity, just like they refuse to draw attention to 9/11 anomalies.

But, I'm undoubtedly too cynical...The Republicans would never use the Judicial Branch as a political tool.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. I was just saying the same thing to Msunderestimator last night

The Repub judges in Mass ruled prior to the election. In California, the Governator wants a special election to redraw districts and this is just the thing to mobilize his base.

[DFWJock]

25. Mary Cheney ....

Still missing in action.

George Bush - Fuck you, you fucking idiot.

OK, I feel better.

[Roland99]

26. Majority rule overrules U.S. Constitution?

hunh?