what does it mean?

[low_delta]

Bush says:
"some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

"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 can understand wanting to make the laws less vague, but what does he mean by activist judges? And by "defiance of the law"? What does he think is going on? What *is* going on?

I thought in all cases the laws were either vague enough to allow interpretation, or the laws were successfully challenged to allow gay marriage. Is this not true? Is Bush lying to us? This sounds like a more serious charge than "stretching the truth". WTF?

Comments

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Technically, "activist judge" has a feeling of "judge who stretches the law/constitution in a way it wasn't meant to be interpreted in order to implement a social agenda."

However, in practice "activist judge" really means "judge who made a decision I don't like."

Usually this is a more liberal step, e.g. Brown v. the Board of Education. However, it can also be conservative. E.g. when Scalia redefined the first amendment to allow governments to make laws that interfere with religious liberty.

To put Bush's opinions in the best light, he feels people are circumventing the will of the majority as expressed in legislation. To put them in a more realistic light, his handlers don't like gay marriage and they are pissed about the judges and legislators who are allowing it.

[beadge.livejournal.com]

Marriage should nothing to do with politics whatsoever. It's strictly a religious ceremony. That means the political system is trying to control and regulate religion, does it not?

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

My marriage to Kevin won't be a religious ceremony.

[vyoma.livejournal.com]

What does he even mean by "redefining?" As far as I can recall, there's no definition of marriage in either the Constitution of the US code. Since no legal definition exists, nobody was trying to "redefine" anything until someone started proposing an amendment.

[specificocean.livejournal.com]

He means judges who disagree with him.

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

What they said.

Lament for the American Republic, as we live in the new morning of the American Empire.

[beadge.livejournal.com]

I guess there are really two aspects of marriage - the religious part (of one's choosing and tradition) and the legal part which intitles one to certain benefits such as tax breaks, insurance, ownership, etc. I think (although I could be wrong) Bush's squable is that he sees this through "christain glasses" and sees this as an immoral offence to the church. If his veiwpoint involves the legal aspect of marriage, then I would agree that this would be highly discrimitory to deny these rights and privalidges to gays.

(P.S. I did'nt get married in a church either)

[banana.livejournal.com]

Bush got elected by a swindle and lied his way into war. Why would he start being honest now?