Bush: Wait on Amendment Defining Marriage

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/02/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

Asked at a news conference today if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage, President Bush responded: "I don't know if it's necessary yet. Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

"What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Sunday that he "absolutely" supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush had not discussed the issue with Frist but that the president backed the Defense of Marriage Act.

"The president believes that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," Fleischer reiterated. "We have a law on the books right now that ... passed with massive, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 1996. The president supports that legislation, and that's where he stands right now."

Federal law defines marriage as between one woman and one man, Reuters reported today. Vermont allows same-sex couples to have "civil unions."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration
George W. Bush

[onyx]

POTUS's words are in quotes, so presumably they're accurate.

[Hodar]

Ummmm, let's see .... elections in 2004. The public opinion on the war in Iraq is being twisted and turned by the press. That's the ONLY thing that could backfire on GW. Why risk the election on this? It can be handled AFTER the election is over.

[kuma]

It's good that Bush is keeping his campaign promises in that he stated he was pro-family.

Many people have stated disatisfaction with some of his policies. AWB is something I'm not in favor of but he did say it on the campaign trail. As long as he didn't advertise falsely for my vote I'll be okay. Just struggling to find out what is going on with Israel but that will take time.

I'm hoping that he is cornering Hamas like he did the Taliban and Hussein but we will have to wait and see. We have done so well in going after all the terrorists and their sponsors I don't want us to capitulate and appease now. He did state that Israel is our friend and we don't turn our backs on our friends.

[tomahawk]

That sound you hear is of large portions of the base getting ready to leave. I expect his position will soon change, once Rove talks to him.

[OREALLY]

This was not the presidents exact words...I saw the interview...As the Supreme's decision he said it wasn't over yet...whatever that meant...He was not approaching the subject lightly and seemed pretty pissed...
He was not shy at saying were he stood...at all.

[AntiGuv]

After the election is over, President Bush will have no reason whatsoever to concern himself with this, because he'll not be standing for election ever again. You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, do you? His actions indicate otherwise.

[kattracks]

Did you miss this part?

"The president believes that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," Fleischer reiterated. "We have a law on the books right now that ... passed with massive, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 1996. The president supports that legislation, and that's where he stands right now."

[AntiGuv]

Translation: the President really doesn't want to deal with this issue, but he will if he must, hopefully without offending much of anyone.....

[onyx]

After the election is over, President Bush will have no reason whatsoever to concern himself with this, because he'll not be standing for election ever again. You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, do you?

Yes, I do.

His actions indicate otherwise.

Cite some. Or one.

[RightWhale]

Do not further modify the Constitution.

[AntiGuv]

Cite some. Or one.

His declining to order the Justice Department to file an amicus brief in the Lawrence v Texas case, even after the Supreme Court invited the administration to declare a position...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"His actions indicate otherwise."

Post them.

[onyx]

And your source is........?

[Miss Marple]

It is beyond me how the anti-Bush people can find something wrong in this statement. We already have a Defense of Marriage Act. He wants the lawyers to look at the Supreme Court Decision and see if an amendment is necessary. He support the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.

What is so hard to understand about that? It seems pretty plain to me, and echoes what I think most Americans think, including me. No where does it say he would NOT support an amendment. No where does it say he support gay marriage.

I guess because he didn't come out saying the gays should be jailed or fined or something he isn't pro-family enough for the anti-Bush faction.

[rwfromkansas]

If he would not defend marriage after the SCOTUS says same sex marriages are not okay, then I will leave.

Why can't you take his approach and wait and see on this. Let's not go nuts yet.

If necessary, an amendment will be put forward, hopefully including a limitation on SCOTUS power as well.

[onyx]

To be crystal clear:

You don't really think GWB has some profoundly intense conviction against same-sex marriage...?

Yes, I do.

[dogbyte12]

Amending the constitution is a drastic thing. I think the President wants to see what happens in Massachusettes first and get some clarification from the Supreme Court. If the Court rules for gay marriage, then he will most likely support the amendment.

It will take the better part of a year for this amendment to be passed through 37 states. I don't think Bush wants this to overshadow his re-election campaign. He hopes that O'Connor and Kennedy will peel back with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas when it comes to the marriage issue, so the constitutional question will sort itself out without a lengthy amendment process.

[Right Wing Professor]

We already have a Defense of Marriage Act.

We may or may not have one in the future, depending on the whims of SCOTUS. Given their actions in the last week of their last term, it would be unwise to relay on anything that isn't written down in the Constitution in plain and simple language. And even then, it may not be completely safe. Look at the second amendment.

[Right Wing Professor]

He hopes that O'Connor and Kennedy will peel back with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas when it comes to the marriage issue, so the constitutional question will sort itself out without a lengthy amendment process.

Even if they do, look at what happened to Bowers vs. Hardwick.