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.
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."
The 2nd Amendment clearly specifies the rights of individual citizens "to keep and bear arms". Additionally, the "full faith and credit" clause also requires other states to recognize the "official acts and records" of other states.
So, how come North Carolina grants me a CCW license to carry concealed in NC, yet Massachusetts will throw me in jail as a felon for carrying the exact same pistol and NC CCW license in Massachusetts - not recognizing either my official NC license or enumerated rights under the 2nd Amendment?
Why does the "full faith and credit" apparently not apply here when it does for a marriage license? Aren't the situations similar? Even though 38 States specifically do not recognize this sort of "marriage" under the Derense of Marriage Act, we still need an Amendment to close the circle? Is this schizophrenic or am I missing something here?
In theory, the whole US Constitution should be as applicable in state courts as in federal courts. It is, after all, the "supreme Law." However, state courts have neglected the 2nd amendment as aggressively as the federal courts.
As for your specific question about taking CCW permits across state lines, as long as the right to bear arms is not treated as a fundamental right (as intended by the Framers), then it falls into the category of privileges, like driving a car. Once that initial mistake is made, then it becomes no different than the use of different laws concerning automobiles when people drive across state lines.
Bottom line, your point is well taken. But the problem cannot be solved until the 2nd Amendment is given its rightful respect as part of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Until that happens, any federal or state courts will give short shrift to a Full Faith and Credit Clause argument as you outline it.
John / Billybob
Thanks for your quick reply, and it makes perfect sense!
I guess I realized what the answer was, but just wanted to hear it confirmed by somebody who probably knows. I have asked the same question numerous times and have either gotten vacant stares or empty "Your Reply" spaces.
It's the old game by those who would re-interpret the Constitution. They are sneakily (and maybe not so sneakily) doing it strictly on their own terms, not the ones the Founding Fathers envisioned. No doubt if these wise men were around today they would at this very moment be accumulating rifle flints, laying up quantities of shot and powder, and heating large barrels of tar to go with the feathers.
Personally, I think we are rapidly approaching the tar and feathers stage, but are still a ways from the shot and powder. But, methinks we'll need a whole lot of feathers before we're through.
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.