What's the difference between these???

Question

What's the difference between redefining a marriage and redefining a citizen???

Bush claims that "renegade judges are redefining marriage (which is traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman) as a way to promote gay marriage". He sees this as a bad thing. Our US Constitution, however, doesn't have an opinion on the matter either way.

BUT...When Bush signed "Connor's Law" into effect, what he did was redefine citizen to include fetuses. Our own US Constitution doesn't even do this. Fetuses are now granted rights under the Constitution. Most noticeably the right to life.

Isn't it hypocritical of our President to support one redefinition but not another???

I'm wondering what the next step is going to be. Remember how Bush wanted to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages and that didn't go thru? I'm wondering what's going to happen next? Possibly an attempt to amend the 1st Amendment to read "Born, Naturalized, or Conceived by Citizen Parents".

Ooops. I meant 14th Amendment...not 1st.

Typo on my part.

Answer 1

For him, it is redefining. It is just a sound good speach thing. The two do not however go together, in that, making one redefition does not mean one must make another.

Answer 2

First of all, the Constitution does state quite clearly that courts don't make laws, legislatures do. Re-defining marriage, which is defined in statutes, is most certainly the job of the legislature, and not the courts.

Second, defining what is a "person" is also a legislative function, and Bush signing a law is part of the executive function.

Assuming you have the intellectual honesty to see that both are true, your allegation of hypocrisy evaporates.

I'd have no objection to only granting citizenship to children born of citizens or at least people here legally at the time of birth.