Bush Backs Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

NewsMax.com ^ | 2-24-04 | NewsMax Wires, AP

[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.

No 'Requirement'

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."

[codercpc]

I think we agree 100%, I just didn't make myself clear (happens all the time:> )

I was trying to say that Kerry's answer about it being left up to the States isn't possible, unless the Federal Government says the states (which must be done via an Amendment) individually can define it, but that other states, and the Federal Government does not have to recognize it.

I am for the Amendment for this reason, I don't want Massachusetts to tell Wisconsin (my State) that a Gay Marriage performed there has to be recognized here.

[Schattie]

The specific clause in mind is:

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

See to me, the second part of that implies that Congress may regulate how "full faith and credit" is implemented.

[DMZFrank]

This amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[ohioWfan]

Bush favors civil unions.

Please cite a source for this opinion.

Today he said that what to do about civil unions should be left up to the states.......and I have never heard or read that he 'favors' them.

Except of course from people who don't like him here on FR......

[txrangerette]

He has said that, if still Gov.
of TX, he would oppose them. But
won't try to outlaw the various
paths states might take on it.
Scott McClellan dealt with that
today. W's definition of marriage
rules his thinking - a sacred
institution of long history that
is between a man & a woman.

THAT'S what he's guarding. Civil
unions seem like a different case
to him.

Incorrect to say he favors them

[ohioWfan]

Incorrect to say he favors them

That's what I thought, because I've been paying close attention, and I'd never heard him say that.

Amazing how freely those who don't like him cite misinformation as fact.

In my book, it's the same as a lie.

[applemac_g4]

The only "lie" is using the weak semantic cop-out that the President is using on this issue. Whether you 'favor' them or just can't be bothered with 'opposing' them, the end result is the same.

And this still doesn't address the issue of what we've gained by defining marriage as between a man and a woman and giving orcs the same benefits under the title 'civil unions'...besides play a word game.

[ohioWfan]

It's not a word game. It's what he, as President can do to prevent the erosion of morals in America, and protect marriage.

He doesn't 'favor' civil unions. He is a moral, Christian heterosexual, happily married man.

He is allowing the states to make their own decisions, and not getting it involved in a federal process (marriage, because it is a longstanding legal institution, and because of the state to state recognition of it, is already there).

Many here on this forum want him to leave the entire homosexual marriage issue to the states. Do they 'favor' it? Most likely not. They just want the states to decide.

Your statement that the President 'favors' (i.e. supports) civil unions was a deliberate attempt to mislead, which is why I asked you to back it up.

You can't, because it's not true, so you played 'word games' to get out of your lie.

[antiRepublicrat]

The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

There must be a better solution. We can't keep playing whack-a-mole with activist judges every time they play legislator (oooh, picture that, 9th Circuit, all behind the bench, a foam rubber hammer...). We need a system in place that recognizes consistent efforts to legislate from the bench and removes those judges. But we still need to keep the judges from becoming succeptible to threats and undue influence from the other branches.

[sportscaster]

Can we get a CBO score on what gay marriage would COST the treasury. I am not sure the government can afford the cost of adding to the roll of married tax benafactors.
Yep gay marriage (as tax cuts in general ...forgetting for purpose of this argument that tax cuts always have INCREASED receipts)
How much faster would social security go broke by adding all these new couples to the benefit rolls.
Gay marriage----we just can't afford it.

[tangerine]

It's pretty easy to figure out the cost. Assume homosexuals are 2-3% of the population.
Cut that in half because it takes 2 to marry. Cut that in half (at least) again because
no more of the homosexual group wants to get married or will be married than the hetrosexuals amongst us.

So what do you have - maybe 1/2 of 1% of the population as an increase. Thus a 1/2 of 1% (.005) increase in the cost at maximum.

[jwalsh07]

Think again, if civil unions and homosexual "marriage" are not stooped at the door, I'll be marrying the person of my choice to pass on my SS survivors benefits to when I check out. And if you think I'll be alone you better think again.

[antiRepublicrat]

Gay marriage----we just can't afford it.

That means we could just eliminate marriage and save the treasury a bundle!

[tangerine]

Be my guest. If that person is a US citizen, most likely that person has a) SS benefits of his or her own or else b) is on welfare.

[jwalsh07]

Be my guest.

LOL, count on it.

[Mich0127]

I totally agree. WE should not have to resort to a Constitutional amendment.
If these judges want to force their tyrannical opinions on us, maybe they should move to North Korea or Cuba, or even Red China

Our forefathers must be rolling in their graves!

[Mich0127]

While I agree with you, I can't really think of a better solution. These judges don't listen to anything anyway.

Maybe force them to resign?

[antiRepublicrat]

While I agree with you, I can't really think of a better solution.

Maybe a rotating judicial review board (like Senate seats but yearly) of randomly picked judges and others with law knowledge. Upon receiving a complaint, a random subset of the panel would be picked which could could censure any judge at any time for any obviously activist decision, but with no actual punishment. Any judge censured by three different panels (meaning those from the first censure panel are at best a minority) could be kicked out.

It would take three years to remove a judge, but it would keep the judiciary free from political reprisal for decisions as it's supposed to be.

[Mich0127]

That is a good solution. I would suggest writing a letter to the president and your senators. See what happens!

[antiRepublicrat]

That is a good solution. I would suggest writing a letter to the president and your senators. See what happens!

It would probably be found unconstitutional by the very judges it's supposed to keep in check. Depressing.