Jeb Bush sees no constitutional right to gay marriage

Print More
Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons

Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(Reuters) Republican Jeb Bush said that he does not believe the U.S. Constitution grants a right to gay marriage as the Supreme Court ponders that very question ahead of a landmark ruling expected next month.

  • Pingback: Selected News Stories from Around the World* — Tuesday, May 19 | The BibleMesh Blog()

  • bqrq

    Previously, Hillary opposed gay marriage because of her religious convictions. It appears that she now supports gay marriage and she is definitely pro-sodomy. Can anyone on this forum confirm whether or not Hillary has formally endorsed gay marriage?

  • Larry

    For the love of humanity, I hope we do not have Bush v. Clinton in 2016. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel on both names.

    Jeb Bush is courting the religious right, of course he is just parroting their rhetoric. Pro discrimination nonsense.

  • Doc Anthony

    Hillary’s most recent statement was made through her spokeswoman.

    Hillary now says that gay marriage is a “constitutional right.”

  • Be Brave

    “– we need to be stalwart supporters of traditional marriage,”

    Jeb Bush is supporting decency, ethical family life and of course as a Christian, the Gospel and the Apostles that brought us The Church.

    He is simply being honest.

    That means he is an enemy of the state. Now.

    One thing the LGBT fanatics will not tolerate is tolerance and diversity. This is the rise of a sickening tyranny.

    And especially any Christian that dares speak or act like one, is hated to the extremes by the fanatics of perversion and vice that make up the liberal/anti-Christian mobs. No matter how you paint the destruction of marriage through its redefinition, an attack is an attack. But when you are dealing with fanatics of “change,” there is no way that reality will get through the diseased mind of the degenerate.

    It is no coincidence that gay power rode on the fists (eh-hem) of the godless secularism movement.

    Watching this all go down is like watching Rome be destroyed anew.

  • Kelly

    The government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. The state should sanction civil unions for everyone and leave it to churches to administer any sacraments they choose to however they choose. Bush’s use of the language of sacrament reveals that this issue is theological for the republican anti-gay base that he is courting. They are, under our constitution, free to believe what they want. They are not free to impose their religious beliefs–or sacraments–on the rest of us. So let the state abandon the religion piece and formalize the civil rights and responsibilities. In practice this will change very little as religious people–gay and straight alike–will be able to find communities and clergy to administer a marriage sacrament that meets their needs.

  • Doc Anthony

    Gay Activists absolutely do NOT want the government to get out of the marriage business. They oppose that move.

    Why? Because if the government ever does get out, the gay activists CAN’T go shopping around for government agencies or court judges anymore in order to bully and blackmail Christian bakeries, florists, and other Christian- or church-related businesses.

  • Ben in Oakland

    A constant repetition of non-knowledge based ignorance does not make the position any more credible. You get a civil marriage license from the state. Religion is completely, totally optional.

    You want to get the state out of the marriage business and replace the civil marriage license from the state with…

    …wait for it…

    “The state should sanction civil unions for everyone.” In other words, ANOTHER civil marriage license from the state. Nonsense. If you were really serious about marriage being a religious institution, you would forego the CIVIL license. But you won’t because of the complex web of rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations that the marriage license confers upon you.

  • Larry

    Much like how the Civil Rights Act and various anti-discrimination laws attacked the freedom of association of shop owners who held strongly held RELIGIOUS beliefs that they should not serve people of darker skin than themselves. All those poor restaurants, clubs, hotels, shops, being penalized and forced to compromise their deeply held values to serve people they considered beneath them. People like yourself Doc. 🙂

  • Candy Man

    I had a witty retort all ready for Doc, and the other haters but why bother. No one has ever successfully won an internet argument and I doubt very seriously that no matter what is said their opinions will change.

    So go on hating people that are different than you. Just remember that gay and lesbian people are human beings and have hopes and dreams just like you do. Just don’t go out and portray yourself as some sort of super-Christian taking a last stand against the gay menace you aren’t fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

    I’ll leave you with John 4:20 “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

  • JR

    I have to agree on all points with Mr.Bush. He shows that faith and politics can mix. All America needs is a President who is his own man, a man who will not sell himself out to win votes. Clinton is pretty much a dying candidate now.

  • Larry

    Well his brother had no concept of the 4th or 8th Amendment as president. So its not surprising that Jeb has no idea how the 14th Amendment works. Constitutional literacy does not seem to be in their makeup.

  • Larry

    I can’t step away!
    This is important!
    Someone is wrong on the internet!


  • ronald

    Our foremost Constitutional scholar has spoken. The Supreme Court better get the wax out of their ears and LISTEN UP to this wise man!

  • Doc Anthony

    So how many gays do YOU employ, Larry? That 70-year-old florist and grandmother who got stomped and beaten-up in court by the Gay Gestapo, had NO problem with employing gays every day and serving both gays and straights 100 percent.

    There wasn’t — and isn’t — a single bone of bigotry or hatred or even “attitude” in her whole body. Nothing but a soft-hearted grandma who literally treated everybody right. Nobody was “beneath her.”

    But the Gay Gestapo **stomped** on that innocent grandmother in court, attacked her with economic Jackboots, threatening even to wipe out her business, her livelihood, her life SAVINGS, for heaven’s sake, unless she bowed and kowtowed and personally participated in the the new Baal worship (gay marriage).

    And you support this kind of mess, Larry. You don’t really care about people seeing others as equals and treating them right. That’s a fake show. You SUPPORT what the Gay Gestapo did in court to this kind lady.

  • Larry

    She had no problem serving gays when she could take an air of superiority to them. People aren’t always bigoted dillholes 100% of the time. She violated the local laws and got spanked for it. Now she is a paid speaker on the Christian wingnut circuit playing the poor martyrbaiting grannie to a crowd eager to ignore its image as the new segregationists.

    I don’t employ anyone. My company employes plenty of people irregardless of sexual orientation. I live and work in states where discrimination on the basis of orientation is illegal.

    ” a single bone of bigotry or hatred or even “attitude” in her whole body.”

    How would you know? Because you know her personally? LMAO!!!!!!. You are just repeating her crafted persona. Created so people like yourself can feel better about legalized discrimination. Being irony impaired, you gladly support behavior which was used against people like yourself. Eff her and her supporters. Good luck peddling that nonsense to the ignorant.

  • Jack

    Neither Bush nor Clinton are exciting figures, but how is either “scraping the bottom of the barrel?”

    “The bottom of the barrel” would be someone like….oh, let’s see…..Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and yes, our current president.

    These are people who should have been disqualified from the outset, either because of unmistakable character or personality disorders (Nixon), utter incompetence (Carter) or a world view that is incompatible with being president of the United States (Obama).

  • Jack

    Bush is the type of person who likes to talk about issues that are not either/or, zero-sum battles, but ones where there don’t have to be winners or losers.

    Thus if he had his druthers, he’d talk about economic growth or trade.

    That’s the sign of a decent human being. He truly wants everybody to win.

    The problem with the so-called social issues is they are win/lose by definition.

    And we can thank the hard left for making the social issues into national issues, forcing left and right into a death match for all the marbles.

    A more constitutional approach would allow communities to decide for themselves….but no-o-o, that would be too…..American??

  • Jack

    Larry, that’s nonsense. Show me one doctrine of biblical religion – any form of Christianity or Judaism that has enduring over the centuries and millennia – which specifically instructs the faithful not to “serve people of darker skin than themselves.”

    Nice try, though.

    Knowing the way your brain works, I think I know what’s coming next….

    So go ahead….

  • Jack

    Applying the 14th to this issue employs the sort of circular reasoning a precocious child can see right through. It’s amateurish.

  • Jack

    Who, Larry?


    He likes to talk about the 14th amendment, but parrots can be trained to say a few words on it and sound like they’re saying something.

  • Larry

    Who is this “hard left” you are talking about?

    As far as we can see:
    Its not “the left wing” who attack constitutionally protected abortion rights. That would be “social conservatives”.

    Its not “the left wing” who are seeking to give discrimination color of law?
    That would be “social conservatives”.

    Its not “the left wing”which constantly looks to violate parts of the 1st Amendment religious freedoms?
    That would be “social conservatives”.

    As far as I can see it, the people who are making social issues something important are the ones who are actively looking to give them color of law. That would be “social conservatives”.

    “A more constitutional approach would allow communities to decide for themselves….but no-o-o, that would be too…..American??”

    If the constitution you are referring to was before 1868. State and local authorities lost the right to be the final say on individual liberties almost 150 years ago.

  • Larry

    Jack, if you want to deny white supremacy and its connection to conservative Christianity, a picture is worth 1000 words.

    I can’t take your “no true scotsman”ing here seriously.
    Here is a bigger shovel for the hole you are digging

    “The burning cross is synonymous with the Klan and has been used as a symbol of intimidation by the Klan. The burning of the cross was used as a symbol of Christian fellowship, and its lighting during meetings was steeped in Christian prayer, the singing of hymns, and other overtly religious symbolism.”

    I can’t take your response seriously in any way. You can try to play revisionist and ignore centuries of religious excuses for racism. But it just makes you look ignorant or dishonest.

  • Jack

    This is how the far left loses — by bullying grandmothers and other lovely things.

    It’s how they nearly lost the electorate forever after the late 1960s.

    If Republicans weren’t such colossal idiots, with pathetic RINOs on one side and bug-eyed fanatics on the other, the left would have lost the country forever.

  • Larry

    Yet you can’t do it without ignoring over a century of precedent and facts known to every 1st year law student in the nation. Your remarks mean nothing.

  • Larry

    I was going to jump in jokingly to thank Ronald, but I thought I posted too much already in a short period of time. You beat me to it!

    I am 1000% sure Ronald was speaking about Jeb Bush.

    I am thankful for the endorsement from you. 🙂

  • Jack

    Nice try, Larry, but until 1973, no court ever thought it constitutional to disenfranchise the whole American electorate — pro-choice and pro-life alike — on the abortion issue. Even pro-choice attorneys like Lloyd Cutler deemed it wrong-headed….They knew well how conservative courts did the same with other issues — ie they too legislated from the bench, knocking down perfectly constitutional liberal laws on minimum wages and maximum hours earlier in the 20th century.

    So thanks for making my point for me, Larry.

    To say that Roe foes are automatically opposing the Constitution presumes that every Supreme Court ruling accurately interprets the Constitution.

    That’s absurd, since sometimes, SCOTUS rulings overrule prior SCOTUS decisions. Think Brown superseding Plessy.

    The rest of your post exhibits your usual confusion between Euro statism and US constitutionalism. Despite the efforts of lefties like you, we’re still a country where states have key powers.

  • Jack

    Well, I was right….I saw that one coming. I wish RNS would let us write more thorough responses in the first place. But they don’t.

    May I suggest a reading comprehension course for starters?

    I did not say that no Christians can be bigots. If I did, I would indeed be guilty of the “no-true-Scotsman” fallacy.

    Read it again. I said there is nothing in the doctrines of historic Christianity, in the core beliefs of the historic Christian faith, ones that unite Christians of all times and places together, that commands or justifies mistreatment of people based on skin color.

    Yes, again, one apparently can be a Christian and do pretty stupid and even horrible things.

    But again, there is nothing in the doctrines that define Christianity across time and place which command segregation or discrimination on skin color. The fact that people after the fact sought to justify such behavior based on their religion does nothing to change that objective fact.

  • Jack

    Larry, it is just laughable to argue that the equal protection clause means it’s unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and a woman. When we apply it to marriage, it means that whatever the definition of marriage, governing authorities cannot arbitrarily pick and choose who gets a marriage license.

    It doesn’t tell us what the definition of marriage should be. That’s up to us — to the American people and those they have elected.

  • Jack

    You could well be right, Larry, that he was referring to Jeb.

    As for you, I’m sure you fancy yourself a legendary constitutional scholar….one whose views on the Constitution, however, unerringly follow the wishes of the far left which cares as much about the Constitution as I do about the molecular structure of mud pies.

  • Larry

    I don’t need a ballot that looks like it was dusted off from 1992.


  • Larry

    So all you are saying is you don’t like Roe v. Wade. Not that you have come up with anything novel to say about it. Then you throw in some Libertarian jargon as if it has relevance beyond spewing epithetically.

  • ronald

    No not Larry. He is no scholar of the Constitution. He is just some liberal athiest, appropriately named after one of the 3 Stooges.

    I was talking about Jeb Bush, or as he will one day known in the future, Saint Jeb!

  • Larry

    Jack, when the 2 billion Christians of the world declare you their one true leader, then your opinion as to who is a real Christian and who isn’t will mean something more than apologetic nonsense.

    Your self-styled definitions are not anything anyone has to take seriously. I don’t have to care whether you think your take on Christian doctrines jive with racism. Plenty of others already do so. You don’t get to hand wave their existence or beliefs.

    Until then, I simply have to go by how they identify themselves. The Klan and all sorts of white supremacists, especially “Christian Identity” all consider themselves Christian and their hatred inspired by their faith. You saying otherwise may make you feel better, but it doesn’t make that fact less true.

    I can’t help it if the anti-gay crowd takes its cues from the racist playbook. That is your cross to bear. 🙂

  • Larry

    Thank you Ronald for clearing that up.. 🙂

    Even I am not egotistical enough to have jumped on that as praise for myself…….though I was tempted. 🙂

  • Larry

    You never bother to read what I write on the subject.

    You insist on engaging in the silly strawman Jeb is engaging in. The equal protection clause applies to gay marriage BANS. B-A-N-S. Had the homophobic bigots relied on voter apathy we would be another decade away from having to discuss this subject. But they decided to institute bans, which bring up equal protection arguments in order to justify their existence.

    Why am I wasting my breath here?

  • Ben in oakland

    Sorry, Jack.

    It was the hard right that declared the culture war, not the left. It was Anita Bryant that started the war on gay people, not the other way around.

    As for losers and winners, the hard right loses absolutely nothing except the war they started, dominion over the people they don’t know and know nothing about, and a ready source of money and votes.

  • bqrq

    My previous post to which you responded was deleted, probably because it was somewhat less than charitable. So let me rephrase it:

    “…..Unlike Hillary, Jeb does not push gay marriage and for that he deserves mucho respect…..”

  • Be Brave

    I love it, Here a gay guy states that gay marriage is just a business transaction.

    Absolutely agree, cuz two same gendered people cannot really form a historically accurate “marriage.”

    Good job Oakland guy.

  • Be Brave

    Candy man,

    John 4:20 is for Christians to Christians. Context, context, context.

    We are to do good to those that persecute us. THAT is why we oppose homosexuality. It is not a right thing to do. To support homosexuality and those that support it would be hateful. It would be lying to encourage anyone to support homosexuality.

    Nice try though.

  • Be Brave


    You can’t ban something that has never been allowed.

    The intolerant, hateful fanatics are those on the pro homosexuality side.

    Ya gotta mirror?

  • Greg1

    Excellent set of exchanges: of course I agree with Jack and Co. I think what is bizarre is having two supreme court justices deciding a case that they have clearly shown bias in prior to the case hitting the docket: Ginsberg and Kagan have already performed gay marriages. These two should recuse themselves. And I do see our country becoming either/or on this issue, and for that matter all moral issues. In the end we might have Religious America to the East of the Mississippi, and Pagan America to the West of the Mississippi. There is an old saying: a long time ago the earth tipped, and anything that was loose on the east coast, rolled west.

  • ben in oakland

    Greg, it’s not biased. They have performed perfectly legal marriages.

    but if you really want bias, let’s have Scaley recuse himself. his bias has been obvious veer since romer v. evans.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    So what do you really want to discuss, boys? Marriage equality, or “gay sex”?

    By the way, heterosexual couples enjoy “sodomy.” Gonna attack them too?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, Jack, but no vote may override the United States Constitution. Please learn to accept this next crushing defeat to your agenda to destroy our Constitution and force your peculiar, minority “beliefs” onto all Americans.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Sorry, Jack, but the United States Constitution, and what the US Supreme Court decide is protected by the Constitution, is not subject to one of your unconstitutional anti-gay Hate Votes.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Ben is 100% correct, Jack, all normal, non-homophobic Americans just laugh when anti-gays try to project their own misdeeds onto their intended LGBT victims.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    You’re lying again, Jack. The anti-gay florist wasn’t “bullied.” She knew before she committed that crime that the anti-gay group “Alliance Defending Freedom Of Faith” had promised to provide free legal representation and pay all fines and costs involved. Anyone can go to the website of this “Alliance” and confirm that because they are raising funds to pay for all that openly on their website.

    The more hysterically dramatic you make this obviously false claim that your intended LGBT victims are “the real bullies,” the more obvious it is to anyone not addled by homophobia what a lie that is. Thank you for working so hard to destroy your own anti-gay political agenda. Please continue posting whoppers like that until 99.44% of all Americans support marriage equality. You anti-gays have already gotten that support level over 60%!

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Jack, we’re all familiar with anti-gays flinging personal attacks at anyone who laughs at these same old anti-gay lies Anita Bryant’s handlers cooked up. Bryant saw marriage equality established peacefully in her home state of Oklahoma. She managed to keep her big mouth shut. Maybe you should take her example as a good idea.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Anyone who can get to this web page knows historians show that same gender marriage was relatively common for over 1,000 years, “be brave.” Why bother to post that same routine anti-gay LIE over and over?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    No matter how desperately anti-gays try to put lipstick on their many attacks of LGBT Americans, no one will be fooled by such obvious lies.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    You agree with Jeb’s demand that we trash our Constitution so a tiny minority of anti-gays can force their ugly, immoral “beliefs” onto all Americans? Yes, we all know anti-gays hate America and our Constitution and are disloyal.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    No matter how many times you claim some anti-gay Hate Vote can overrule the United States Constitution, Jack, the US Supreme Court will not be fooled, nor will even ONE normal, non-homophobic loyal American.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Anyone who “respects” Jeb’s contempt for the United States Constitution is not a loyal American.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Despite your apparent cognitive dissonance, same gender couples totalling over a million have married in 37 US States and the District of Columbia. Spare us that constant LIE that your intended LGBT victims are “the real bullies.” Not one normal, non-homophobic American is fooled by that obvious lie.

  • CarrotCakeMan

    Greg1 avoids mentioning the obvious extreme anti-gay bias expressed by Scalia, Thomas and Alito. That factual information doesn’t advance his anti-gay political agenda.

    No, there won’t be “two Americas,” all the anti-gays would fit in one small town in Alabama.

  • Greg1

    Scalia is merely upholding the federal standards of our country. To date, only certain states have veered from normalcy. And until a universal federal decision is rendered, federal supreme court justices must adhere to federal standards, especially when a case is looming, otherwise, they give the appearance of bias, such as Ginsberg, and Kagan. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Scalia publicly commenting on this one way or the other.