« Karma...the great equalizer... | Main | The smell of napalm in the morning »

November 30, 2004

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q The United States Supreme Court declined to take the appeal from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that allowed for same-sex couples to get married in Massachusetts . What's the President's reaction to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that the President continues to emphasize the importance of moving forward on a constitutional amendment that would allow the people's voice to be heard and not allow this issue to be decided by activist judges or local officials who seek to redefine what is a sacred institution. The American people strongly support protecting the sanctity of marriage. I think you can look to the recent elections in 11 states to see the kind of broad support there is for protecting the sacred institution.

Whoa! First of all, when did I wake up in a Theocracy? Seriously! Did we elect a High Priest or did we elect a politician? Paying tithe is considered a sacred institution to millions of Americans too. Should we also put that in the Constitution?

Secondly, what part of individual citizens casting votes in those 11 states does President Bush not consider to have sufficiently met the criteria for allowing "the people's voice to be heard"?

Q But the activist -- the judges of the United States Supreme Court, the Justices just said this is something for the states, that we aren't going to get involved in this. And 11 states are doing it. Why does the President want --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think -- I don't think that they were looking at it from the federal law perspective, but looking at it from the state law perspective of the Massachusetts court.

This is just plain stupid. Does Mr. McClellan seriously think that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court didn't realize that the only reason the case was brought before them was to argue whether the federal constitution trumps the state court's authority? For the justices of the Supreme Court to not look at a single case first and foremost from the federal perspective would be a gross deriliction of duty.

Of course it's obvious that what McClellan is trying to do here is to spin the USSC having declined to take the case as somehow not a blow to President Bush's agenda of quashing state's rights.

It doesn't really matter whether you are for or against gay marriage. Bush via McClellan is arguing that the ratification process for a constitutional amendment is somehow a better mechanism for hearing the voice of the people than direct votes by the people are. McClellan demonstrates that by completely sidestepping a pointed question:

Q And so the President's position -- just to get this right -- is that if a state wants to decide through a majority vote that it will allow for same-sex marriages, the President wants to have the federal government smash that down and make sure that no state can decide that, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that you're talking about what activist judges are doing right now. The activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of society, and the people's voice is not being heard in this process. That's why the President is committed to moving forward with Congress on a constitutional amendment that would protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the people's voice to be heard in this important debate facing our society.

What seems crystal clear is that Bush doesn't want to allow the people's voice to be heard via direct votes. He clearly would prefer working with politicians. Or is he not aware that constitutional amendments are ratified by state politicians?

Why?

Posted by Kevin at November 30, 2004 09:06 PM