02/20/2004: "Pres. Bush waffling on Gay Marriage"
In this article President Bush's position on gay marriage is analyzed.
I wonder why he is being so vague on the issue? Is it that he wants to see how it all plays out before making a stand? Is he hoping that it'll get resolved on a state/local level and he won't have to come out strongly against it (and maybe lose some votes in an election year)?
Anyway, I can't help but laugh at this quote in the article in regards to the fact that the will of the people is against gay marriage: "In San Francisco, the democratically elected mayor took this action just weeks after hundreds of thousands of people voted for him," said Jon Davidson, senior counsel of Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal group.
That person clearly doesn't understand two critical concepts: hierarchy and cross-city and cross-state legal standing. I'll try to explain it in words he'll understand:
If SF democratically thinks gay marriage is acceptable, they can vote on it if they want or elect people who will enact (that means to write them and pass them) laws about it. But the citizens of the state of California voted to outlaw gay marriage (that means it's not acceptable anywhere in the state). The state of Californias laws supercede (that means they are more important) those of SF because of this complex idea of "hierarchy". This is particularly important when the marriage licenses issued in one city must be respected (that means honored or accepted) throughout the entire state and as such throughout the entire US. See when you get married in SF, you're still married when you go home to Vacaville. Because this is true we can't have one city issuing (that means giving out) marriage licenses that are invalid (that means not worth anything) in the rest of the state. Understand?
But I won't spend too much time trying to educate him on these immensely difficult legal concepts. I don't know if a lawyer could understand them.