Bush Fabricates Threat To Marriage, Blames ‘Activist Judges’
Bush Fabricates Threat To Marriage, Blames ‘Activist Judges’
Yesterday President Bush tried to justify a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage by blaming “activist judges”:
Unfortunately, this consensus [against same-sex marriage] is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.
But this threat is being exaggerated by Bush and the right wing. In reality, the judiciary has played a very small role in defining marriage and traditional marriage is not under attack:
– Same-sex marriage “has been recognized in only 1 of the 50 states as the result of court order.”
– While only one state, Massachusetts, allows same-sex marriage, forty-five states have barred the practice under state statutes or state constitutional amendments.
– Nebraska is the only state that has its marriage amendment overturned. The court invalidated the amendment because it was drafted so broadly that it would have prohibited every type of same-sex relationship, not just same-sex marriage. But the decision did not order the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The case is now under appeal.
More debunking of Bush’s myths on same-sex marriage here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush and his disciples only dislike “activist judges” when they make decisions they don’t like. The biggest “activist” decision in US history — Bush vs Gore — suited them just fine.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:21 amWhat does marriage have to do with the Constitution?
Doesn’t life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cover that already? Does the Constitution need to be amended to ban life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
There have been same-sex marriages in my home town. If a woman wants to marry a woman, that’s their business. If a man wants to marry a man, that’s their business.
If James West marries Michael Huffington, who really cares? If Ann Coulter marries Mary Cheney, who cares?
June 6th, 2006 at 11:26 amDubya attacking Gays is the most vicious hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life! Bush himself is Bisexual/Gay, but he hates himself for lusting for guys like Jeff Gannon the escort hooker! Bush needs therapy and must resign from the presidency!
June 6th, 2006 at 11:26 amI think this post is missing the larger point. The judiciary has a vital role to play in interpreting the law and in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights against both state and federal trespass.
For example, the Court in 1967 struck down state law barring interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia. Do President Bush and the GOP want to claim that Loving v Virginia was “judicial activism?”
At the end of the day, “judicial activism” is merely a term conservatives use when they lose.
For more on Loving v. Virginia and other Supreme Court cases relevant to the current marriage equality debate, see:
June 6th, 2006 at 11:27 am“Here Comes the Judge.”
When tomorrow all the things are gone
We’ve worked for all our lives
And thr right has saved the nation
From homosexuals and their wives
I’ll wish on every star
We’d had Clinton here today
Or perhaps to hear that Howard Scream
And make it go away…
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican
June 6th, 2006 at 11:27 amWho really cares about this marriage amendment any way. The government should stay out of peoples personal business. There is more pressing thing to discuss as Iraq, health care, gas prices, immigrantion, and you get the Idea.
I can not believe this right wing Republican party. They are only doing this to side track from other issuses;. The media is just as bad.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:27 amBush is a moron. He doesn’t even understand what he means when he says “activist judges.” He has demonstrated again and again his lack of understanding of the Constitutional structure of the three branches of government. Heck, the dufus can’t even define what he means when he uses the term “sovereign nation.” Anyone else annoyed that we have a president with a 5th Grade understanding of the world?
June 6th, 2006 at 11:27 amThank you right wingers for giving us such a “compassionate conservative President.”
What a crock, but par for the course as far as lying and talking out of both sides of his mouth.
#7, I was only 14 when Reagan was prez, but in hindsight, he was a GENIUS compared to Bush II.
Doctors study medicine for YEARS before practicing. What did Shrubbie study before becoming prez? FAILURE. Just look at his business track record, IT’S HORRIBLE.
So, once again, he’s par for the course.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:37 amDon’t always underestimate these guys. By having us talk about gay marriage which most of us could care less about, the Senate majority is quietly pushing for a cloture vote on the repeal of the estate tax. That is the real issue that they care about. Do you really think Bush’s controllers really care about gay marriage?
June 6th, 2006 at 11:37 amSo Nebraska is the only state that has had its amendment overturned. As with Iraq, Bush’s actions are a pre-emptive strike against the states. There is a “gathering threat” that judges might overturn amendments in other states. It’s the Bush Doctrine, modified for war against so-called activist judges instead of terrorists (in Bush’s mind, is there any difference???), and aimed at each of the 50 United States.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:40 amThe most dangerous of the “activist judges,” of course are the ones that Bush and the US Senate recently placed on the Supreme Court: Alito and Roberts. Those Senate Democrats who voted for either of these judicial thugs should be held accountable in the primary process.
Remember that, as Sidney Blumenthal wrote in The Guardian (6-1-06), the Bush-Cheney cabal
Iraq is burning, Afghanistan is burning, the planet itself is burning (i.e., global warming). We have been plunged into trillions of dollars of national debt, and are operating at a budget deficit of hundreds of billions. Our prestige in the world is lost. The Western Alliance is seriously fractured. The separation of church and state has been over-ridden. Congressional oversight has been abandoned. War crimes have been committed in our name, and war profiteering is going on in front of our eyes. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen. Oh yes, let’s all debate “Gay Marriage,” “Flag Burning” and “Illegal Immigration.” Oh, forget that last one. It is not polling well.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:44 amRichard Power
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com
http://www.wordsofpower.net
GWB has no idea what he’s talking about, and he doesn’t even care. This issue will never get through to a vote. Let’s get busy paying attention to what his other hand is doing people!
June 6th, 2006 at 11:46 amIf Bush is so concerned about protecting marriage, why not ban divorce? Divorce is the anti-matter of marriage.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:46 amOhhh now they want to talk about the Constitution, how dare they talk about amending a document that they have turned into toilet paper. You forgot that quaint old thing a long time ago Georgie and you will probably issue a signing statement on it anyway. Ever try to get shit off a piece of toilet paper?
They care about gay’s or marriage even less, hell Bush does not even care about his own marriage (mirage). He is the antichrist I will ever see in my lifetime.
Hurry up 2008.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:52 amChallenge the reich-wingers: Ask them to name the actual damage to traditional marriage that same-sex marriage poses. Say “give me an example or you lose the argument.” Almost all of them wouldn’t have anything to say in response.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:56 amI think we should have traditional marriage as defined by the bible. One man, and as many women as he can take care of. Solomon had a couple hundred wives didn’t he?
June 6th, 2006 at 11:59 amIt’s worth noting that the one state that allows gay marriage also has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The obvious lesson: gay marriage is good for traditional marriage. Those defenders of traditional marriage ought to be trying to get gay marriages allowed in every state.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:04 pmGeorgia’s amendment was also thrown out recently on a ballot technicality. The Governor has called a special session to redraft the amendment. GLBT needs to team up with women and demand an amendent requiring equal right for all citizens, period.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmOne thing will lead to another. There will be a follow up amendment to the Constipation to have marriage between a man and a woman banned also.
It’s just a piece of paper anyway, so what does it matter?
June 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThe Gay Marriage thing is an election year smoke screen and it has also been tied to the estate tax. Does anyone honestly think that this proposed amendment is being brought forward while the estate tax is being voted on for reasons other than to create a political smoke screen?
The estate tax, or death tax as republicans lamely call it, is in actuality a wealth transfer tax. Right now it taxes the full amount of the transferred wealth, which I feel is wrong. What it should be doing is taxing the appreciation of that transferred wealth. Once this tax goes away, depending upon how it is done away with, it will have a negative affect on the economy. Stocks and appreciated wealth can be transferred without taking any of the appreciation into income. In effect incomeless stock sales will take place. The estate tax is a unified estate and gift tax. Now it might be possible for someone to build up a business, which is great, then sell it which is also great, they should be compensated for their hard work. However they should also pay income tax on those earning. But it may soon be possible for an individual to gift his business to a seller, who will then gift cash or stock back. Or probably more common they gift the company to an heir who will gain the appreciated basis then sell the company at market value for little or no gain. This is a disaster in waiting. The actual unified estate and gift tax affects so few Americans that it is not funny, while the repeal could have huge ripple effects in the economy that are either not foreseen by the wise ones in the white house, or more likely they don’t care.
As to the whole activist judge issue, republicans obviously do not care about our legal system. Our legal system is based upon English Common law. Hmmm, what might that be except judge made law. Common law involves judges looking at issues and deciding what is right and what is wrong. When they deal with the codified law and issues come up in which the facts and circumstance differ from case to case, the judges have to make decisions. Which brings up a very scary point. At Alito’s time of confirmation he pretty much let it be known that he does not believe in Stare Decisis or the principle of using past precedents to decide cases, in other words, he does not believe in Common law principles. This is going to be a very scary guy on the courts over the next 20 – 30 years.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#1
When judges, like in the 9th Circus, start twisting the law as it is written in order to suit their politics that is what is ment by “activist” judges. When your last bastion of political power resides in the courts you will do what you can to promote your political agenda especially when you are unelected and unaccountable.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:13 pmJune 2, 2006 — A White House source, speaking on background, vehemently denied to WMR that there are marital problems between President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush over a reported extramarital affair between Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. However, two mainstream media sources have confirmed that their sources also have reported an ongoing affair between Mr. Bush and Rice.
Sources need to check out the fact that Laura moved out of the White House and into the Mayflower Hotel this past weekend. Talk about a hypocrit. He can’t even keep his wife happy.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pmIt’s worht noting that in the Massachussetts case, 3 of the 4 justices (including the chief justice) who supported tha majority decision were appointed by Republican governons. These are not far left liberal activists as Bush and friends would have the public believe.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:27 pmThis tactic is standard operating procedure for this administration. They sell they policy initiatives (like the disasterous Iraq war) like Proctor & Gamble sells soap.
First they “create a need” by fabricating a problem. Then they present their policies, in this case a Consititutional amendment banning gay marriage as a solution.
My blood boils just thinking about these mendacious bastards!
June 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pmRemember, the Constitution, according to Shrub, is “just a damn piece of paper.” (yet in order to win favor of his constits, he acts like it’s a living document?) Hypocrite fascist dumb-ass.
This, my friends, is what an elitist upbringing will teach you.
Anyone (especiall the Prez) with such disdain for a sacred document MUST be removed from office, 2 years ago…
June 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm[[When judges, like in the 9th Circus, start twisting the law as it is written in order to suit their politics that is what is ment by “activist†judges. When your last bastion of political power resides in the courts you will do what you can to promote your political agenda especially when you are unelected and unaccountable.]]
Tracy, judges who are upholding the rights of gay people to marry aren’t twisting any law. They’re simply insisting that the 14th Amendment means what it says it means: ALL citizens are entitled to EQUAL protection under the law. Yes, certain exceptions can be made (e.g., we let adults do some things we don’t let children do), but there must be a compelling public interest clearly demonstrated by anyone who would seek to do so. And no such compelling interest can be proven in the case of banning gay marriage.
Commenter #1 was quite right: Bush v. Gore was a classic case of judicial activism.
June 6th, 2006 at 12:40 pmThe previous thread about Ann Coulter has disappeared!
June 6th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#21 except there is one big difference between the adminsitration and P&G The soap P&G sells works, nothing the administration sells works, except for their faithful that it.
June 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#22 – Have a link for that?
June 6th, 2006 at 1:01 pmAt least the people of this country don’t have to worry about the three branches of government and it’s checks and balances. The executive and legislative branches have declared themselves above the law while the court has made the decision that the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn’t worth protection since wistleblowers can no longer have protection. The Secret State of America, corruption is king. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer worth even the scratch paper that people could copy them on to.
Meanwhile, the media goes along it’s real business and continues to push products for their compatriots. News is nowhere to be found, just entertainment and pimping products.
June 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pmAs others have said, you’re missing the point. The point is that same-gender marriages do not threaten anybody. Even if the courts mandate that such marriages have to be allowed, nobody is forced to participate in one.
June 6th, 2006 at 1:36 pm[...] Is it just me or does it seem like liberals are in a complete panic mode (just look at these comments) over this issue. Rather than letting Bush just go down in an utter defeat as they claim will happen, they are going full throttle to discredit the attempt at a Constitutional amendment. I’m confident the amendment will not pass, but I’m also confident of where the American people stand on the issue. Could it be liberals know they’ll lose this debate? [...]
June 6th, 2006 at 2:06 pmIf dumbya views the Constitution as “just a Godamn&**d piece of paper” and his codpiece Gonzoles says it is “an outdated document”….
Why is he hell-bent to amend it? Could it be that he is simply calling the so called base to whip them into a fury of hate, intolerance bigotry and racism for political gain?
Rove is sure loosing his touch. Dumbya realized this and went back to kicking the people with dark skin today (not that dark, just the Mexicans) by stoking the fires of fury, hate, intolerance, bigotry and racism from a different direction for political gain.
Look out people, who knows when you will be the next group of people he will want to persecute. We already know they support raiding houses and executing “suspected” evil-doers. Will anyone speak up when you are the one with hands bound behind your back as you kneal on the floor of your home pleading for your life?
June 6th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#32, sounds like you are loosing control.
Those liberals you are scolding are taking a page from the REPUGnican play book.
Whazza matta? Can’t handle someone playing by your rules? – pity.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:19 pmGovernment-sponsored prejudice must be stopped at all costs. This isn’t liberal panic, this is the proper response to the audacity that anyone would suggest changing the Constitution in order to accomplish one thing: validating and legalizing their prejudice against a minority. Yes, Bush is using this (yet again) as a distraction. Distraction or not, it’s a valid issue we should all be fighting, among the many other things we must fight when it comes to this worthless piece of shit “president.”
June 6th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#26
It is the court’s responsibility to uphold the LAW which in turn bestows rights on the people. If a state laws says that marriage is between a man and a woman only then that is the way it is. The 14th amendment is dependent on the laws as they are written, state by state. I don’t support the gay marriage ban amendment to the U.S. constitution…this is a state law issue.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pmThe only activist judges are the ones who put this brain-wither in the office of the President.
June 6th, 2006 at 3:27 pmActually #36 it is the courts job to interpret the law and to ensure that the law is not inconflict with other laws and the constitution. It is the executive branch that is chrged with upholding the law. If the courts are given bad law to work with they have to strike the law down otherwise they are not doing their job. Under your interpretation it is the courts job to uphold the law regardless of it’s validity.
When ne law says citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law and another says that citizens need to be divided into two classes, what are the courts to do except interpret the law and use the principle of precident to aid their decision. Republicans hate precident I know, but it is how common law works.
June 6th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#34 – C Storms has his own blog. He comes here for material.
June 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pmleisure guy #29 – go here – randi rhodes website - just so you can see the picture that accompanies the link to wayne madsen report with that story… scroll down to 6/2/06 – you’ll see right away – great pic! is that love, or what?
oh – while at randi’s site – check out the story from yesterday about Leola McConnel and her account of w’s bisexual past… whooo-ee!
June 6th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#38
Which is why that vast majority of state laws regarding same sex marriage has not come before those state supreme courts. Those laws have not been striken down by any state supreme court (except Mass. I think.) or the U.S. Supreme Court.
“…what are the courts to do except interpret the law and use the principle of precident to aid their decision.”
What precident regarding same sex marriage?
June 6th, 2006 at 7:46 pmUmm, don’t try to play off that there is no such thing as an “Activist Judge.” If you’re going to do that, I’ll point right to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and this lousy excuse for a ruling.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not only allows, but REQUIRES students in PUBLIC, STATE FUNDED SCHOOLS to say the words, “Praise be to Allah,” and “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,” and “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger,” for 3 weeks as part of a class to “Learn to become Muslim.”
They made this ruling stating that they were not “overt religious exercises,” but saying the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are, and thus considered a breach of the separation of Church and State.
June 7th, 2006 at 12:04 amDoes anyone know if it is true that Laura Bush moved out of the white House?
June 7th, 2006 at 7:57 amNews & Current Events
See other News & Current Events Articles
Title: First Lady Laura Bush has established temporary residence in the Mayflower Hotel
Source: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com
URL Source: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com
Published: Jun 1, 2006
Author: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com
Post Date: 2006-06-01 16:01:28 by add925
220 Comments
June 1, 2006 — Rocky shoals for Bush marriage? Informed sources Inside the Beltway report that First Lady Laura Bush has established temporary residence in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC as a result of a tiff with President Bush over an extramarital relationship involving her husband. Mr. Bush’s tryst is said to involve Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It is not known how long Mrs. Bush plans to remain at the Mayflower, however, her security detail has been present at the hotel during hours when the First Lady would normally be residing in the White House. While she was National Security Adviser, Rice, who has never been married, referred to George W. Bush as “my husband” before she corrected herself and said, “the president.” Rice was speaking at a dinner when she made her “husband” remarks.
WMR is tracking the Laura Bush story.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:18 amFirst they came for the Jews…
June 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#41 you make no sense. In your post #36 you say it’s the courts job to enforce the law, that is absolutely false, it is the courts job to interpret that law and ensure that it is in line with other laws and most importantly in line with the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and may be again someday, we’ll see.
You are correct in that there are no precedents to follow, at least none with fact patterns revolving around same sex marriage. However the cases about interracial marriage can be used to supply the logic and they all involve the principle that we as Americans are all supposed to be entitled to the same rights and privileges. To the best of my knowledge the US does not officially have two classes of citizens. Churches can still deny anyone a Church Marriage, which they do even today. Try getting married in a Catholic church without jumping through the hoops.
I still have not heard a coherent argument as to how gays marrying affects traditional marriage, other than the ridiculous Adam and eve not Adam and Steve argument. Think about it Adam and Eve shared the same genetics (via a rib), so they must have been related, how sick is that? But how is Gay Marriage more of a threat to traditional marriage than divorce? Or affairs (coveting thy neighbors wife…one of the big ten) Other than definition I see no threat, all I see is that there is a segment of the population who are focused on homosexuality as being the only sin out there and they want to eradicate it.
#42 with out cites, the analogies offered by you, and the website you link to, are useless. Without being able to read the case I have no clue as to whether the case exists, or if it does exist, if it says what you imply it says.
June 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pmthis is interesting! still trying to find the ruling from 9th that #42 referred to, but came across this, from a frequent commenter here at TP, Grand Moff Texan, doing a fine job of discreditng the right’s indignation about the ruling…
June 7th, 2006 at 4:42 pmREGURGISPHERE: Teaching Islamofacism in the Classroom!
http://darrelplant.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/23/16221/0504
Nice post!
——
http://www.htlounge.net
News: Gadgets, High Tech, Automobiles, Software, Games, Players, Phones, Multimedia …
http://www.softdatabase.net
June 7th, 2006 at 6:34 pm10.000 Free software downloads: Freeware and Shareware
And it’s probably just a coincidence that Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the U.S.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:10 pmOn the same sex marriage debate, it is noted that only one state has accepted it as an option. It is rather curious that public opinion is so different that only one state could make it legal. But then, to my knowledge, only one state allows prostitution legally also. That’s rather odd also.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:26 pmHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! LcPOnWAQO9CgiO
January 12th, 2007 at 1:24 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:05 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 8:28 amCatherine
I just wanted to tell you that your site is really awesome and is of a fantastic quality. The content is great and I will be returning.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pmKellye
If you ever need a helping hand, you’ll find one at the end of your arm. As you grow older you will discover that you have two hands. One for helping yourself, the other for helping others.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 aminterracial sex link
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pmAuto Loans
Acquire bad credit car loans to have a chance to afford a newer Lexus after applying using a exceptional society!
March 29th, 2008 at 7:20 am