Pal: Bush 'Political' on Gay Nup (doesn't really care about issue)

June 5, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - President Bush doesn't give a hoot about gay marriage - despite its being a big issue in his 2004 campaign, a friend claims.

"I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s - - t about it. He never talks about this stuff," the friend tells this week's Newsweek magazine.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/64756.htm

Newsweek article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/page/2/

Bush has friends?

Let's think like a Freeper.

Yep.

Hawkeye-X

straight people? Why does he hate families and traditional marriage?

:puke:

unless laws are written like a checklist or an algebraic formula - it's up to ALL judges to INTERPRET the LAW in any given case.

there are sentencing guidelines - however - it's still up to a judge to determine the actual sentence. It's a JUDGEMENT call - hence the title of JUDGE.

Be it civil or criminal cases, judges balance the laws with interpretation. Juries balance the evidence presented with their interpretation of a given case. Every court case is a precident setting or reaffirmation of a precident.

If judges are not free to weigh the evidence, listen to arguments and interpret the laws then we might as well get rid of judges and replace him/her with a minimum-wage clerk and a check-list.

Activist Judge = Any Judge who Disagrees with Repub Right-Wing Wing-Nut Agenda

Good Judge = Any Judge Willing to Narrowly Interpret An Issue So that Agrees with Repub Right-Wing Wing-Nut Agenda

On the last one I love how when the "Right" was not in power they cried state rights. Marriage is usually handled on the state and local level. If I remember right the pastor claims "by the powers invested in me by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania I now pronounce you ..." and my wife and I had to get a marriage license from the County (I think). This seems a blatant violation of their (previously) most sacred rule.