Skip to comments.Bush Backs Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage
Posted on 02/24/2004 12:36:01 PM PST by Mich0127
WASHINGTON Saying he wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution," President Bush today backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and urged Congress to approve such an amendment. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millenia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.
"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."
McClellan said Bush believed that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.
Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said.
"We're two months away," he said.
McClellan said 38 states had passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage, and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification."
"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."
With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court's decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay couples from Europe and more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage. Last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.
Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.
Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.
Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.
The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
They shouldn't, and the people should not tolerate such action from a judge. Guess a substantial number of people are willing to keep the defective judges, and just institute a new piece of text in the Constitution.
To draw a workplace analogy, at some point it's better to fire a defective worker than it is to institute another workplace rule.
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the object here. I'll take action whichever way it comes, but prefer to dump the judges.
Oh, I agree with that! I just don't there are enough conservatives left to make a whole lot of difference.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes Internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
This is very doable.
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
I think that is a huge distinction that needs to be made.
Every network (FOX included) has their banners reading that the President wants to ban Gay Marriage, yet from what I understand the Federal Government as of today doesn't perform marriage ceremonies, all they do is recognize them.
I am all for an Amendment that protects States Rights in this manner, but I don't think that is the message that is getting out. By saying that the Federal Government wants to ban Gay Marriages, instead of not recognizing Gay Marriage I think you are then denying rights, not expanding States Rights. Shouldn't there be a distinction?
I don't really care much about the issue since a couple of gays marrying doesn't affect me, but I do have a general problem with an amendment that is restrictive to the population. It's like with flag burning, where I strongly advocate beating the crap out of a flag burner, but won't advocate a restrictive amendment to ban it.
If the Marriage Amendment does not pass the Senate in this Session of Congress, I expect that it WILL pass the Senate in the next Session, after the membership of that body has changed.
States can have their own motor vehicle codes. The law changes for the motorist when he crosses the line. But states cannot have their own laws on marriage, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Does that make sense to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.