Today's Bush Radio Address: "...the union of a man and woman..."

[Human Torch]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060603.html



THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

Thank you for listening.

END

[Avalux]

1. WTF?

"An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdity of this. Maybe this time their tactics won't work - kinda like beating a dead horse.

[EFerrari]

4. I just figured out that "activist" is anyone who isn't in their pocket

and tries to do their job.

[Avalux]

6. Exactly.

An "activist judge" is being used to describe judges who are fair and reasonable and have an understanding of the Constitution, willing to interpret it appropriately.

[neoblues]

15. It Sure Is "Activist" to Do One's Job with Integrity...

at least under the Bush Administration. Such deliberate corruptions of words like "Activist" need to be fought; it gives 'activists' (the real ones, who are often struggling against the greater wrongs in our society) a bad name. Obviously, to apply the term "Activist" to a judge for properly and correctly interpreting the Law and the Constitution is an absurdity.

Absurdities from an absurd miscreant pretend President. Just what we need.

[stellanoir]

13. Bingo

Good one. You nailed it. And hi there honey !!!

[EFerrari]

18. 'Morning, Stella.

:)

[Human Torch]

8. Here's what he's really trying to say:

"An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because my Evangelical base is calling for payback, and they have left me with no other choice."

Setting the debate over the issue aside for a moment, this move is sad and pathetic. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a lame duck president to do when his ratings are in the cellar and people keep using the "Nixon" word to describe his legacy.

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

19. Welcome to DU, Human Torch.

:hi:

[Human Torch]

24. Thanks, sfexpat2000!

:hi:

[Kahuna]

28. It truly is sad and pathetic. And history will view it as such..

The only possible good outcome of bush's coup is that it will finally end the grip of the BFEE and republican hate politics on America for decades to come.

[EFerrari]

2. If the union of a woman and a man led to THAT,

we better rethink this whole enterprise.

:rofl:

[Vickers]

3. Activist judges? Like the ones who voted you into office?

What a pathetic assmonkey.

[saltpoint]

5. This amendment has about the same chance for success as the

president's Mars initiative he referenced in his State of the Union speech.

The only other connection the two have is that anyone who supports this amendment should be SENT to Mars, by tomorrow noon if not sooner, never to return again.

It's gussied-up hate speech, plain and simple.

[Avalux]

11. Don't think it matters if it's successful.

It'll occupy the media's interest and the focus of the American people while the really important stuff gets neglected. "Look over there!"

Keeping the American people divided while they continue to lie and steal.

[saltpoint]

17. Well, they've had their successes with it, no question, but is this kind

of political agenda sustainable?

I don't believe a party that is energized by hateful division can expect to sustain dominance with the electorate.

This is not a good sign for the Republican Party.

They can't stand on their merits so they have to debase the opposition. That's not enough to sustain viability.

It will have limited, but increasingly smaller successes, yes. But it's a death knell for the party's claim to governance.

[VolcanoJen]

23. They're just grabbing for the 30% or so that still dig the Prez.

It is indeed gussied-up hate speech, the kind that appeals to the remaining stragglers in Bush's "base."

I say, let 'em. I watched Lou Dobbs laugh right along with three pundits at the idiocy of the proposed amendment the other night. It warmed my heart. :-)

[saltpoint]

32. It almost pains me to give Lou Dobbs credit for something, but if

he did that, I say good for Lou.

Bush is grandstanding, and I love your analysis about the base -- I think that is spot-on exacto.

[XOKCowboy]

7. Energizing the 29%

How do Rove and Cheney think this is the way to turn around this inept administration. We've still got $3+ gasoline, Iraq, Haditha, the NSA, no healthcare, job insecurity and the Republicans are going to waste our time messing in our bedrooms.

The public is beginning to wake up to the fact that this administration is on the wrong track. Do the Bushies think we're that stupid?

[Human Torch]

16. On "The Guy James Show" yesterday...

...Guy presented an eye-opening and very detailed "History of Dick Cheney," from the beginning of his career to the present. It was amazing, and I encourage you (as well as anyone else reading this) to download the MP3 from The White Rose Society and listen to it:

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/James.html

It's fascinating and sickening all at the same time.

You're right about the public beginning to wake up, but if you listen to Guy's show and follow the chronology of Cheney's ascent to power, it really does answer the "Do the Bushies think we're that stupid" question (answer: Yes, they do)...

:patriot:

[XOKCowboy]

25. The terrible thing is...

yes we are that stupid. The little shit got elected TWICE didn't he?

Thanks for the link on Cheney.

[xxqqqzme]

40. Yes he did...it was an eye opener for me

I had no idea that darth cheney was a medal of freedom recipient. That's right up there w/ Kissinger getting a peace prize.

[stellanoir]

9. Okay fine

but who's going to choose precisely which man and which woman get to revel in complete and total domestic bliss while the rest of us pine away longingly and watch?

Every time ya think this administration can't get any dumber, they out do themselves. Gotta hand it to 'em.

I thought declaring English as America's official language was absurd.

Our government has become a parody of itself at best. It would be funny if it weren't so bloody tragically pathetic.

[C_U_L8R]

10. Republicans are desparate

to get any kind of support at all
in the upcoming elections.

It's pathetic that Republicans resort to stupid crap like this...
unfortunately it's stupid crap that works.

Dems need to be MORE motivated and
bring out MORE votes against this wave of
Republican fascism... and stupidity

[Newsjock]

12. Decline and fall

At times like this, words cannot adequately express the amount of contempt and hatred I have for this pathetic, hateful, little, murderous bastard and the lemmings who willingly follow him off the edge of humanity.

Somewhere today in America, some good ol' boys are going to hear a report about this radio address, perhaps on Fox News or CNN or maybe just on local TV. "You tell 'em, Dubya!" they'll shout. And later tonight, while they're out cruising, they're going to come across someone. Perhaps it's a young man who looks slightly out of place. Perhaps it's two men who might be just a little closer than everyone else in the room. These people might be gay, they might not be. But they look like they don't belong.

And our good ol' boys will remember the words of their great leader: "That solution should come from the people."

The scene may just be violent, but it might also be bloody. And if there's just a little bit of alcohol or meth in the mix, the scene might turn tragically fatal.

And, Mr. George W. Bush, sir, that blood will be on your hands. Fuck you, George W. Bush.

[WildClarySage]

14. "Marriage is the most enduring

and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."

Encouraged and honored when that marriage is approved by fundie freaks. Otherwise, it is feared and hated. Marriage needs protecting from fundies. Not from gays.

If Britney Spears, abusive spouses and poligamous Mormons are not a threat to marriage, my neighbor and his partner are not. And frankly, the strength or weakness of my marriage has nothing to do with anybody else who chooses to enter into it.

[xchrom]

20. showing that once again republicans are never able to take

resposibility for their own actions when things fail.

if their marriage fails -- it's ''the gays'' fault.


iraq -- nobody reported on the ''good stuff''.

and i have one more bitch to make -- these activisit judges -- aren't they american?

as in american citizens leading american lives -- probably educated in american universities?

i mean these are americans expressing an american interpretation of american law?

american law which expresses ideas of american equality?

[ccpup]

21. So, with these words in mind --

"the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society" -- will Supreme Decider Asshat make it against the law for a man and a woman to get a divorce? I'm sure all those Family Values repugs (you know, the ones with mistresses and secret boyfriends and nasty alcohol and drug habits that lead to super-secret spousal abuse) will line up behind the Divorce Is Against the Law bandwagon.

This protect marriage bs is such a classic Shiney Keys for the Knuckledraggers Moment. (sigh)

Oh! And this -- "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard" -- was almost met with a coffee spew on my keyboard! Is he f*c*ing series!1!1!1! Kinda hard for us to be heard from those holding pens 2 miles away from where Asshat is butchering the English language. And don't forget having scarey looking (but kinda hot) men pointing their big guns at us.

And with that I segueway right back to the subject of the original Post! LOL

[VolcanoJen]

22. I love taunting my gay-hatin' Republican acquaintances with this...

... well-worn, time-tested smackdown:

"If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then you should support a Constitutional Amendment banning DIVORCE."

That usually shuts their thrice-married traps right up. }(

[SOS]

30. When their hero Ronald Reagan

divorced Jane Wyman, was he defending the "most enduring and important human institution"?
Or when Newt Gingrich handed divorce papers to his wife in her hospital bed, was he protecting the holy institution?
And Giuliani was having an affair while Mayor! There's another Republican holding marriage sacred.
The list is endless and the hypocrisy appalling.

[MikeNearMcChord]

26. Hey Mr. President, the first rule of getting out of hole, stop digging

[BBG]

27. Queering the Constitution - Grounds for Impeachment?

The oath of office the asshole swore was to uphold and protect the constitution. Not to amend it, change it, fix it or reinterpret it. Since when does his job description include championing changes to the constitution? Wouldn't speaking out for change be contrary to upholding, ipso facto conflict with his sworn oath of office and thus an impeachable offense?

If you ain't for the Constitution then you're against it.

[BBG]

31. and Another Thing...

Is there even any precedence for executive branch advocating for amendments? Maybe I'm off base here but absent any precedence it would seem that the ass has staked an unconstitutionally untenable position prime for impeachment.

Enough of this shit already. Regime Change NOW!

[JDPriestly]

29. This is a gender discrimination issue.

If the government allows a man to marry a woman but does not allow a woman to marry a woman solely because she is a woman, then the government is depriving the woman who wants to marry a woman of the fundamental right to marriage based solely on her gender. Gender discrimination is only subject to intermediate scrutiny in the courts, however, the right to marry is a fundamental right. Therefore, if I recall my Constitutional Law course readings correctly, the right to marriage is subject to strict scrutiny, and the government should have to show a compelling reason to prohibit marriage based on gender. There is nothing extremist about my interpretation of the law. It is logical based on legal precedent and must result if we are to have a rule of law that applies consistently to each of us. LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Right-wingers argue that gay marriage would endanger heterosexual marriage. There is no evidence to support that assertion. But, a good argument can be made that the prohibition of gay marriage undermines the right to gender equality. I remember when the right-wingers said that women couldn't be policemen because a policeMAN was by definition a MAN. Same for postMAN and other professions. How about salesMAN? Can women be salesMEN? Not if you follow that old logic. Male nurses were the brunt of jokes and elicited raised eyebrows.

The Defense of Marriage Act was a blow to gender equality and equal opportunity. Clinton should be ashamed of himself for having signed it. This new attack on gender rights must be seen for what it is -- a way to limit the opportunity of a significant number of people of equal treatment before the law, and an erosion of the rights of every American. Who is next? Atheists? Muslims? Jews? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? The mentally disabled? How about African-Americans? or Hispanics? or Asians? Or political dissenters? Why not prohibit marriages with people with genetic flaws?

The Amendment Against the Equal Right to Marry is a disgrace. We must resoundingly reject it. Once again, we must remember the lesson of Germany in World War II. They came for the Jews, I was silent . . . . We who cherish the gender equality, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be silent in the face of this assault.

My strategY: This Amendment is being introduced to shift the voters' attention away from the disasters that Bush "leadership" has caused. The best way to fight this Amendment is to shift the focus back -- on the corruption, incompetence, criminality and irresponsibility of the Bush regime.

[kiahzero]

34. You were right the first time

Discrimination on the basis of sex is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

I agree with the rest of what you said, just couldn't resist the nitpick. Sorry. >.<

[JDPriestly]

42. Just being cautious. I didn't check the research although this is

pretty ordinary stuff.

[high density]

33. Hey F--knut, Iraq and this country are getting screwed pretty hard right

now. Cut it out with the "red meat" stuff for a while and focus on the real issues. KTHX.

If anybody was truly concerned about "the sanctity of marriage," they'd start with outlawing divorce.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Well George, let's start with those polygamists in Utah, shall we?

Or are those fundies acceptable to you?

[NightOwwl]

36. It ain't gonna work this time around.

I am actually looking forward to his Monday evening Rose Garden address where he will reiterate his support of the FMA. He may get some of those 29 percenters back in his corner, but he'll lose whatever support he has left of independents and old-school conservatives.

I predict a drop in the polls to the lower to mid-twenties. Can't wait!

[hollowdweller]

37. The GOP hates all unions what's he talking about ;-)

[terrya]

38. Oh, this is RICH

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity"

While you support codifying permanent second class citizenship on gay Americans such as myself.

Fuck you, you disgusting homophobe. Spare me your pathetic attempts at "compassion"

[Skittles]

43. and the sad thing is, terrya

these bastards don't even understand the sheer hypocrisy of it all.

OMG TERRYA, MY GAY NEIGHBORS WANT TO GET MARRIED; WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!! It would be hysterically funny if wasn't so g.d. sad.

[Joe Bacon]

39. Make Republican Senators answer these questions!

Granny C Posted this on the Bart Cop Forum:

Take a moment and call and/or write YOUR Senators.
(either party)


Ask them:

Have you ever CHEATED on your spouse?
Ever you had (or given) oral sex?
Were you a VIRGIN when you got married?
Have you ever been DIVORCED?

Make them answer these questions on the floor of the Senate!

[MADem]

41. Here's where the Monkey has FUCKED up

If the courts are not the appropriate venue for deciding who may marry whom, interracial marriages, then, could be outlawed. Then, he'll NEVER be able to dump Pickles and marry Condi--at least not in Virginia!!!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/3/11228/42572

The President couldn't have made his position any clearer. Courts should not be overturning the will of the people when it comes who should and should not be allowed to marry. Now, which enterprising White House reporter will ask whether the President thinks that Loving v. Virginia should be overturned?

[w8liftinglady]

44. my latest LTTE

The President’s latest call for a Constitutional amendment protecting “The sanctity of marriage” is a thinly-veiled attempt to mobilize his rapidly declining base.Are Republicans so easily led?Let’s think of the things that might be a little more important.We are in a war based on lies that is spiraling into another Viet Nam.My son did three tours in Iraq,and I have seen first-hand the tragedy of this war. There are rumors of war with Iran-with our troops already stretched too thin.The federal deficit has reached limits never conceived by economists...7 trillion dollars of DEBT..and climbing.The upper 1% of us received a large tax break,while our country spirals deeper into debt.45 million Americans have no health or dental insurance.As a nurse,I have seen the byproducts of people who wait until something is really wrong before they see a doctor.
Global warming threatens our planet, and our Republican-led congress is trying desperately to pass the “Clean Skies Act”, which will increase the level of emissions that manufacturing companies and refineries can produce. We are sacrificing our Constitutional right to privacy courtesy of the NSA,and Mr. and Mrs. America thinks it doesn’t affect them.We have a huge trade deficit,and most of our major corporations have offshore accounts,so they don’t have to pay American taxes.But,enough of that.Let’s focus on two guys who want to marry each other.That’s SO much more important.
http://w8liftinglady.blogspot.com/

[Popol Vuh]

45. I wonder what Gannon thinks?

[coffee_and_cream]

46. On Marriage and Gay rights

i'm a democrat, and i've got some gay friends. they're very good friends of mine. been together for quite some time now. i've known them. they're pretty smart individuals whom i get to discuss jz about anything... from the most sensible topics to the craziest ones like hunting for guys. jz wondering how would they end up when they reach 40s or something. wud they be able to live happy life with someone special... oh well this remains to be seen. i dunno. jz torn between letting my friends enjoy normal lives like normal couples have and standing up on what i believe is more appropriate. personally, i do support Bush's bullshit on marriage. darn! i'm a democrat. but fine, perhaps a moderate one O8)

[coffee_and_cream]

47. Santorum Defends Outed Gay Staffer

oh jz wanna add... getting confused about Santorum. we all pretty much know he's an ultra-conservative - an anti-gay, anti-prochoice on abortion, umm... what else?

check on this link: (http://www.votersdomain.com/article.php?aid=1110&tid=122&from=search)

INTERESTING... hehehe :freak:


"Man is by nature a political animal."
-- Aristotle