Month: February 2004

President Bush announced his support for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Rather than rehash the same arguments I’ve made recently, I’m going to interpret today’s speech. I begin with this:

Eight years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense-of- marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

That doesn’t “express an overwhelming consensus” on this issue. It states the approximately 8000 legislators voted in federal and state legislatures. An issue like this hasn’t stood before the nation for a realistic tally. What we’re getting is legislators pandering to lobbyists for re-election dollars.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Again President Bush engages in name-calling to desensitize people into Us vs. Them. It’s bad enough that he does this in international diplomacy. Is this the example we want of how Americans treat people?

In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

Seems the President skipped Civics in school. Last time I checked, that’s how laws are interpreted in the United States. It’s ok for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to hunt with Vice President Dick Cheney, even though the Supreme Court is considering a case involving V.P. Cheney and Halliburton, but four judges in Massachusetts doing their job is activism? I’m disappointed that “obstructionist”isn’t in this speech, since that is quickly catching up to “activist” in the Republican name-calling.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

I’m a broken record, but all of those contributors to “uncertainty” are part of the American judicial system. It’s not acceptable to throw out the rules when they go against your beliefs.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

I think the courts are adding clarity. I also think the President is scared. Why are you scared, Mr. President?

Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Democratic action is already happening.

The Constitution says that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state’s definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Let me make sure I understand… The Congress figured it could pass a law (the Defense of Marriage Act) that overrode the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. And that’s a good thing? And when that didn’t work, you’d rather just modify the Constitution? Good choice.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

You didn’t slip that “activist” by me, Mr. President. If I were playing the Republican hate speech drinking game, I’d be bombed. However, that part of the Defense of Marriage Act would be struck down because it’s unconstitutional. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to prohibit activist judges.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

Yep, cause outlawing same-sex marriage is on the same level as abolishing slavery and allowing for equal suffrage.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Prove it.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Unless you’re gay.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

I agree. Ram this baby through the Congress and the states and hope no one notices. Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a great idea. Point of Reference: 18th Amendment. Also, I’ve read reports that the amendment process would be drawn out because that’s the way the amendment process works. Oh, really? The 26th amendment, proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, was ratified by July 1, 1971. The difference is that the 26th amendment granted rights instead of restricting them.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

President Bush is drawing a line in the sand to protect civil unions and spousal benefits for same-sex couples. That’s very big of you Mr. President. I know it’s not what you want, but you want this to pass quickly, so you made a concession.

America’s a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

Yes, it does require that. A free society doesn’t encode a class system into the legal system. A free society respects every person as an equal. And the institution of marriage? Beware of defending “institutions. Slavery was an institution deemed acceptable in a free society.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Accept for “activist”. We know you reserve the right to continue using that.

In related news, Gov. Schwarzenegger is worried about potential violence because of same-sex marriages?

On Sunday, Schwarzenegger said he was worried about the potential for violence because of the controversial marriages.

“All of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there’s injured or there’s dead people,” he sai
d on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Who do the President and the Governor think will be violent? And violence isn’t always physical.

Ultimately, I’m exhausted by this amendment. It’s irrational to amend the Constitution because of this issue. It denies rights to individuals. It is incongruent with the rest of the Constitution, in the same way that the 18th amendment is incongruent. The President, who has no legal involvement in the amendment process, is winding up his minions for an election year push. We’re setting ourselves up for disaster. Unbelievable.

Scanning the news, I encountered an article about Governor Schwarzenegger’s Sunday talk show debut. It seems he had a few interesting ideas to discuss.

He made a push for foreign-born citizens to become eligible to run for the Presidency. Consider this:

“There are so many people in this country that are now from overseas, that are immigrants, that are doing such a terrific job with their work, bringing businesses here, that there’s no reason why not,” said Schwarzenegger, who became a U.S. citizen in 1983.

“Look at the kind of contribution that people like Henry Kissinger have made, Madeleine Albright,” he said, referring to two former secretaries of state who were born in Europe.

Schwarzenegger said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he has been too busy with California’s problems to contemplate a future run for the White House. “I have no idea, I haven’t thought about that at all,” he said.

For Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens to become eligible, we’ll need to amend the Constitution. Fortunately, just in time to allow Gov. Schwarzenegger to consider a future run for the White House, Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed such an amendment.

I haven’t thought about this issue in enough depth to determine how I feel about it. My initial reaction is to oppose any such amendment. America’s strength comes from its diversity, but there was a rationalization for including that stipulation in the Constitution that hasn’t changed. While it may be outdated and closed-minded, it must be considered. Please read this article for a detailed analysis.

Here is the text of Senator Hatch’s proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 15:

SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President , is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

My primary issue is how convenient that 20 year citizenship requirement is for Governor Schwarzenegger. Perhaps pursuing the House version introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder and co-sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank would be wiser. In the House version, a foreign-born individual would need to be a citizen for 35 years before becoming eligible for the presidency. Not only does that put aside the appearance of special consideration for Gov. Schwarzenegger, it adds a buffer to some of the potential fears about allowing foreign-born citizens to occupy the White House.

Also, although it’s implicit in the Constitution, the Snyder/Frank amendment would put an equal restriction on foreign-born individuals that I face as an individual born in the United States. I have to be a citizen for 35 years before I’m eligible to be president, so a foreign-born individual should face the same. Even though the Constitution would still require someone to be 35 or older, foreign-born or not, everyone would have to meet the same basic requirement of 35 years of citizenship. If someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t become a citizen until he was 35 years-old, that’s bad luck. Fair isn’t always pretty.

Moving on, Al Gore won California in 2000, so the assumption is that California is dominated by Democrats. Yet, Gov. Schwarzenegger believes that President Bush can still win California in November’s presidential election. However, to gain the support of Kahlifornians, the Governor believes that President Bush’s vote total is directly proportional to the amount of federal funds directed into California.

“I think it is totally directly related to how much he will do for our state, there’s no two ways about it,” Schwarzenegger said. “Because Californian people are like a mirror, you know that what you do for them they will do back for you,” Schwarzenegger said.

“If the federal government does great things for California this year I think there’s no two ways about it, that President Bush can have California, he can be elected, I’m absolutely convinced of that.”

I’m not a citizen of California, so I’m angry about this assumption. It’s unacceptable for the President to use the tax dollars of all Americans to bribe Californians for their vote. I’m not naive enough to believe that this doesn’t happen in Congress, but I’ve never seen such a blatant, open admission that a state can/should be bribed. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s statement is a disgrace to honest government.

How is President Bush’s use of a recess appointment to seat Alabama attorney general Bill Pryor on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals any different from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issuing same-sex marriage licenses?

Bush has now used the recess appointment twice during his presidency. While he is within the Constitution on this matter, that’s only the letter of the Constitution. He’s using a broad interpretation of the Constitution, which seems opposed to his view of interpreting the Constitution regarding same-sex marriage. (I understand that other presidents have used the recess appointment. It’s become acceptable and can be a valid tool to grease the wheels of government. The recess appointment isn’t my issue with this argument.)

After the White House notified key Senators of President Bush’s action, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, responded with his statement.

“General Pryor is a man of integrity committed to the rule of law, not making law from the bench. I am confident he will impartially interpret the law and uphold justice.”

Frist said Bush had been “forced to make this recess appointment because of the unprecedented filibuster that Senate Democrats have used. … This obstructionism must stop.”

Senator Frist stopped short of saying “activist judges”, but he should be honest about it next time since that’s what he was trying to say. Judges do not make law, contrary to his statement. Judges repair bad law or return it to the legislature for reconsideration, which is in their job description. That’s the definition of interpreting the rule of law. It’s called checks and balances.

As for obstructionism, it’s a legitimate form of intra-government dissent. While it may not reflect the majority vote within the Senate, it’s how the Senate is structured. Perhaps Senator Frist should remember that the next time he wishes to use the Constitution to his advantage.

The heart of the appointment issue is Bill Pryor’s views and potential rulings worry Democrats. This next section briefly touches upon an issue that illustrates this concern.

As Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor was a key figure in the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore for defying a federal judge’s order to take out a Ten Commandments monument from the judicial building in Montgomery, saying it violated the principle of separation of religion and state. Moore was removed from office in November.
…
Pryor, a Republican and self-professed conservative Christian, supported the monument’s installation, but said Moore was bound to obey the judge’s order.

That implies to me that he would rule differently than the order he was “bound to obey”. However, openly confronting the issues when he’s sworn to obey the law doesn’t seem to be a problem. Consider this from an article in The Washington Post.

Pryor, 41, has described Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion rights decision, as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” In 1997, his first year as Alabama attorney general, he invoked God’s will while speaking at a Christian Coalition rally to defend a state judge who posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

Ignoring the issues presented, I think behavior and the people’s trust in impartiality is the key with this nomination and opposition. The current Attorney General for a state should not be speaking at a Christian Coalition rally and invoking God’s name.

President Bush used this recess appointment because Senate Democrats filibustered Pryor’s nomination. I stated that, while not necessarily the original spirit of the Constitution, it’s within the literal interpretation. He’s not breaking the law.

Allow me a moment to determine if I have this correct. Realizing that the original framers of the Constitution hadn’t thought of every situation the United States may face, the Constitution’s interpretation can be expanded to include what is deemed correct and necessary? Also, President Bush, frustrated by a branch of the government’s refusal to make progress that he saw as correct, stepped in and took action himself to fix the mistake?

I’ve assessed the situation correctly. There is no difference between the actions of President Bush and Mayor Newsom. President Bush is a hypocrite.