Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(link)..WH briefing question: will shrub send in Nat'l Guard to stop gays?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
diamond14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:11 PM
Original message
(link)..WH briefing question: will shrub send in Nat'l Guard to stop gays?
Edited on Fri Feb-20-04 08:42 PM by amen1234



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040220-7.html

The transcripts and video are up for todays White House briefing and the important questions about whether shrub will send in the National Guard to protect America from the gay law-breakers in California.....

Today's 'Mayberry Machevalian' White House press briefing (it's so embarrassing for the United States of America to have EVERYONE see the insanity going on in the White House)...

the briefing was shorter than usual...only lasted 30 minutes...
video is on the web link below....
------------------------------------------------

here's some highlights from the transcript

Q On another topic, the Mayor of Chicago has now said that he would have no objection to that city issuing marriage licences for same-sex couples. Judges in the state of California have evinced no interest in stopping what's happening in San Francisco. And there are a lot of Americans who are not just troubled, as the President has said he was by these events, but outraged by them, and they are looking for leadership, and they don't see it in the White House. There is some suspicion that the President's political advisors are telling him that this is too hot to handle. What would you say to them?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would think that those are some wrong impressions, number one. This President has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And this President is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage. He has made it very clear that he will do what is legally necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage. And he has said, if necessary, he is prepared to look to the constitutional process.

You mentioned some of the events that are unfolding. We have seen events going on in Massachusetts. We have activist judges trying to redefine marriage. We have seen events in San Francisco, and some other areas, I've noticed, have been talking about it, as well, where some are seeking to redefine marriage, as well. And the President talked just -- I guess it's two days ago, about this very issue when he was asked about it. And he talked about how those events are influencing the way he is looking at this. We've been looking at it very closely, and this President has committed to doing what is necessary to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. It's a principled stand. The President has always felt this way and believe very strongly what is legally necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage. That's why he supported efforts like the Defense of Marriage Act.

Q If I could just follow up, many people who saw him speak out on this were dismayed by the mildness of his comments. They felt that he was not, for someone who, as you say, feel so strongly on the issue, sufficiently outraged by what they see as a spectacle and a travesty. Do you sense in him a real commitment, an outrage?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a principled position that the President has taken. He has made it very clear that it's important to treat everybody with dignity and respect, no matter where you stand on the issue. But this is an enduring institution in America. And the President is committed to doing what is legally necessary to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. He has called these recent events that you bring up, "troubling," and he has said that they are influencing the way he is looking at this. We've been looking at this issue very closely and taking a very deliberate look at it because he is strongly committed to protecting this sacred institution.

Q Just one more, briefly. Do you know if he wants to see the movie The Passion of the Christ?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think -- I think he does, and I think at some point, he probably will.

---------

Q Since the President is, under Article II, Section III of the Constitution, required to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," what specifically has he done with regard to more than 2,000 violations of California's marriage law by the Mayor of San Francisco? And I have a follow-up.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we just went through this subject at length when Terry brought this question up, and I told you what we're doing.

Q -- he hasn't done it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're closely looking at these events.

Q Is he in touch with Governor Schwarzenegger on this issue, do you know?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if they've had a conversation. Certainly, we're aware of what the Governor has been doing, as well.

Q When there was massive law-breaking on the campus of the University of California in Berkeley, Governor Reagan sent in the National Guard, just as the 101st Airborne was sent into Little Rock, whose schools were breaking the law. And my question: Does the President believe those actions are wrong? And if not, why hasn't he asked Governor Schwarzenegger to take action against this massive law-breaking?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's the way we're looking at this issue.

Rick, did you have something?

Q Actually, it was a bit more on the marriage --

MR. McCLELLAN: So you're good.

Okay, Bob. (Laughter.) No, no, no.

Q People are trying to find out -- we've seen the violation of the law in California. We've seen the problem with the Massachusetts court. We've seen people getting quite upset about what's going on. We've seen the President saying that this is troubling. I think what the people are wondering is, when are we going to see the President step up to the plate. There are a lot of conservatives in the country, and others who are rather upset by this, and are saying, where is the leadership, where's the action, when are we going to see --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think the American people share the President's commitment to protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage. I think the American people recognize that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Obviously, there are some with different views, and as I said, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect. The President has always believed that. But this is an important principle on which the President is very firm. He has said that he is deeply troubled by the events that you are bringing up. We continue to look at this issue very closely. Obviously, if there's more to say, we will let you know at that point.

Q What more has to happen before the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said -- I think you heard from him the other day. He talked about how these events are influencing him. You mentioned how some are ignoring the law and we talked earlier about how some activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage, as well.

Q When will he take action, Scott? Any action?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040220-7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. This Joy and Love must stop! Together with peace, its the new axis of evil

How dare these terrorists, some with white hair and wrinkled faces, threaten the very foundation of our Homeland with their cold-blooded commitments to share their lives and love each other forever!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamond14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. TWO wars going on, 540 soldiers KILLED, thousands injured,
40 Million Americans without health insurance...18,000 homeless people in Washington DC, right outside the White House, 60 % of them are OUR Veterans...7 Trillion dollar deficit...the Anthrax Killer on the loose...t

and bush* spends all his time, and our money to stop people from loving each other...as BIG Chicago Mayor Daley said: "They love each other just as much as anyone else".....

bush* is a 'little' man...SEND HIM BACK TO HIS PIG FARM...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe smirk will get his big fighter jet and shoot them
after all - he did go . I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. that must be Les
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. You mean, one BIG Stonewall 2004??
Oddly enough, there is nothing he could do, that would soilidify the 'cause' more than that, and it would gain gays tremendous public support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. That reporter was being silly. National Guard? Not needed.
The very most that the gays in SF are actually doing is a political demonstration. They aren't actually getting married. Those marriage liscenses have all the validity of a rubber check. So no laws are actualy being broken. Therefore the guard isn't needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC