Pictured Rachel Weisz 'Today's lesson in hypocrisy comes to us courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They met in a different private room behind closed doors today and approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. ... These guys are shameless. ... This is all being done by the Republican majority in an effort to appeal to right-wing nuts in the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. Ignore all of the pressing issues facing the country, and instead go grovel at the feet of the lunatic fringe.' — CNN's Jack Cafferty in a May 18 broadcast.
'The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts. An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.' — President George W. Bush in a June 3 address to the nation.
'The states regulate the conditions of marriage, and unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide. We in Arizona should make our decisions about the status of marriage in our state just as the people in Massachusetts and other states should make their decisions.' — Probable Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain opposing the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, to Fox News, May 21.
'The U.S. Constitution should be something that unites, rather than divides Americans. I do not believe that government should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry. I believe New Yorkers should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of sexual orientation. If they [ New York's highest court ] rule that same-sex marriages are legal, then we'll perform them. ... If they rule the other way, our administration will begin working with the state Legislature for a new law that establishes marriage equality for all New Yorkers.' — Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his weekly radio address, May 28.
' [ T ] here is simply no case for an amendment that would write into the Constitution an express command to every state and federal official to discriminate against a class of people. Marriage has always been a state matter in the American system, and nothing about the advent of gay marriage in a single state should change that. Opponents of same-sex marriage outside of Massachusetts have no cause for complaint. What goes on in that state doesn't concern them, and they have shown themselves perfectly capable of organizing in many other states to nip marriage rights for same-sex couples in the bud. What's more, federal law already guarantees that no state need recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other. So the only purpose of a federal amendment would be to prevent states that wish to move toward marriage equality from doing so.' — Washington Post editorial, May 24.
'Today's radio address is another example of the lengths to which President Bush will go to pander to the religious right. They demand that he speak out on the [ antigay ] Federal Marriage Amendment and, on command, he obeys. ... The president's attacks on the courts and 'activist judges' are not only insulting to the foundation of our republic but profoundly ironic given that they come from a man who would not be president at all but for 'activist judges.'' — National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman, June 3.
