What did Bush mean by this?

Did anyone notice on his State of the Union address when Bush said this:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

More specifically this:

If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Judges forcing their arbitrary rule and returning to the consititional process? That is the constitutional process. There's nothing arbitrary about it, it's all part of the checks and balances, and besides judges interpret the law they don't say this is the new law and you will obey it.

That statement is just completely ridiculous in my opinion, the only arbitrary party apparent to me is Bush.

He is simply stating that the courts have been making rulings that allow for Gay Marriages and civil unions. He is basically saying here that the only way to protect marriage is to have a Constitutional Admendment protecting marriage making Gay Marriage impossible without the admendment being repealed.

Then the judges could declare that amendmant unconstitutional which is perfectly legal, my impression was that Bush wants to circumvent the judges cutting out a third of the "Constitutional Process".

A judge CANNOT say an ammendment is unconstitutional, because an ammendment is considered an addition to the constitution. If it becomes an ammendment, the only course of action to change that is to pass another ammendment repealing it (such as the 19th ammendment, prohibition)

Originally posted by Bowser
Then the judges could declare that amendmant unconstitutional which is perfectly legal, my impression was that Bush wants to circumvent the judges cutting out a third of the "Constitutional Process".

Judges do not make laws just follow and interprit. If they start making laws then should the senate start judging people? Every branch of the government has it's duty or the checks and balances won't work.

That is actually one of congress's biggest problems with state judges calling the partial birth abortion laws wrong, and several other cases where judges mandated what laws should be. It's causing congress to be worried about a lack of seporation of power...

By my reading of the statement Bush reiterated that laws such as these are up to the individual states just like it says in the Constitution.

The voters of each state have the right to elect state representitives that will reflect their view when making state law.

Dissenting voters have the right to public debate expressing disagreement and if they make their case well enough the majority will elect representitives with that view in mind.

Federal court judges making new interpretations of existing law as set forth by a state legislature negates the wishes of the voters, this is what bush refereced when he said "the people's voice must be heard"

I mght be wrong, not living in America, but doesn't Bush saying no to Gay marragies and proposing to ban them outright violate your constitution somehow? All that freedom stuff you guys have and 2 people who love each other, regardless of gender, can not marry? I know this insults my intelligence and i find it offensive. How can Bush tell people what to do?....It seems that America is turning into a bit of a Dictatorship to me.

this administration has been ferocious about gutting Judicial power and when not successful, appointing really right-wing judges. This is all part of the NWO plan. Starve social government programs through costly wars, tax cuts for the plutocracy, and huge corporate welfare increases. Eliminate judicial oversights and protections on the citizens and executive branch. Keep the people frightened and docile through acts of terror. Form a homeland security force that directly answers to the Executive branch. Eliminate personal privacy, encourage the people to "watch" each other, and remove dissidents from the protection of the constitiution (Guatanomo BAy?). Find an ethnic minority scapegoat and convince the people that they are under daily attacks and can only be protected if their liberties are removed (only temporarilly of course).
Its classic fascism kiddies.
A lot of people have questioned why the German people would let themselves be fooled so easily into the having the Third Reich. These same people believe that this could never happen here. The truth is that the Germans enjoyed the strongest democracy in Europe. they were crippled by the first world war and the economic strangulations afterwords. They are a proud people that believe in a strong military, patriotism and core German values like family and christianity.
They were partly duped and partly deluded into accepting Hitler's extremism. they also suffered "terrorist" attacks. These were later found to have been done by Hitler's brown shirts. They also had an ethnic minority scapegoat. They also waged "wars of liberation" in Austria and the Czech Republic. The German people were told that they were in a war of cultures that were being financed by western powers and rich jews. The allowed their personal rights to be removed (temporarilly, also temporarilly) for protection. They allowed the creation of a 'fatherland' military-force that superceded the police, answered only to the executive branch and whose job it was to root out dissedents, traitors, terrorists and spies.
Seeing any similarities?

Its a step by step process. What the "secret chiefs" learned from the German experiment was that they moved to fast. In America this process has taken decades, crossed generations and used both politcal parties to accomplish their goals. Its the smart move...makes it harder to track and even harder to see the bigger picture.

This is an issue of states' rights, pure and simple. Bush probably has never even read the constitution and has no understanding of it. To him, everything's "my way or the highway." It's appalling.

There's actually nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights, that I'm aware of, that says that's right or wrong. If anyone is aware of an ammendment which stipulates this, lemme know!

BTW, the actual constitution, not including the ammendments, just goes over the law making process and the seporation of powers. No where in it is a law outside of mandating what congress, executive, and judicial can do.

Originally posted by Nemesite
I mght be wrong, not living in America, but doesn't Bush saying no to Gay marragies and proposing to ban them outright violate your constitution somehow? All that freedom stuff you guys have and 2 people who love each other, regardless of gender, can not marry? I know this insults my intelligence and i find it offensive. How can Bush tell people what to do?....It seems that America is turning into a bit of a Dictatorship to me.

No kidding. This is supposed to be the land of the free. We are rapidly becoming the land of the freedomless. The patriot act is a prime example of that...now Bush is threatening to do this? In the name of protecting the sactity of marriage? THERE IS NO SACTITY OF MARRIAGE. 50% end in divorce. Bush needs to get off his soap box and pull the coke spoon out of his nose. There is absolutely no reason for this type of amendment besides furthering a discriminatory and hateful agenda. It's rediculous. People who are in love and want to legally commit themselve to each other should be allowed to do that. The government has no business putting its nose into peoples personal affairs.

This country is rapidly on its way to a dictatorship.

Dictatorship? because a president doesnt want to allow two men or two women to marry? No...because they don't have the freedom to.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
This is an issue of states' rights, pure and simple. Bush probably has never even read the constitution and has no understanding of it. To him, everything's "my way or the highway." It's appalling.

Oh come on, now. You know that's not true.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
This is an issue of states' rights, pure and simple. Bush probably has never even read the constitution and has no understanding of it. To him, everything's "my way or the highway." It's appalling.

Oh come on, now. You know that's not true.

he can't even speak properly, and you think he can read? ...and then comprehend? he grew up with a nazi as a grandfather and a father who was chief of the secret police. you think that's not going to paint his world view?