Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040224/D80TNENO0.html

Feb 24, 11:10 AM (ET)

By DEB RIECHMANN


WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia 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 believes 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 have 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 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 is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from 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 the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President 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."

Bush's comment that the states should be left free to "define other arrangements" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.

A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.

i was against a gay marriage ban amendment, that is until gay activists and activist mayors and judges decided to change laws that were voted into being by a majority.. now I may actually not DREAD a Bush re-election... either way ill win... if Bush loses i get the white hosue back, if he wins he will push a Gay Marriage ban amendment... good for me.

If Bush if having to amend the US constitution to ban gay marriages, then gay marriage must be currently legal under the laws of the US (otherwise he wouldn't have to amend the constitution to ban it).

You can't ban something which is illegal, because it's already banned.

You can only ban something which is currently legal.

Therefore, the gay marriages which have taken place in California are legal.

Actually, no. California law bans gay marriage, so those marriages are against the law. The Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. What Bush referred to in his speech, is that if one state ratifies gay marriage, then other states must recognize their marriages legality. Thus the Amendment process will head off the possiblity of this happening, and keep gay marriage illegal.

Bad move, Bush...bad move.

Actually, it's a great move.

Bush just energized and solidified his conservative base.

Now Kerry will have to either back the Amendment, and piss off his base, or come out against the Amendment, and go against 70% of the country. Either way he loses.

Sounds like a pat theory, but I'm thinking that this will come back to bite Bush in the ass eventually. It may be a smart campaign move, but I'm not sure this is something he's going to want as his legacy if popular opinion moves against him on this, as I think it will eventually.

Did it hurt Clinton's legacy when he passed the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Bush just guaranteed his reelection with this move. Kerry will try to waffle, saying he backs civil unions, but not marriage, but will eventually have to make a choice that will sink him either way.

No, he managed to cement the people's rememberance of him by having sexual liasons with an intern in the office while he should have been working, and then lying about it while trying to slickly imply that whether he did it or not depended on the exact definitions of words like "sex" and "is".

We'll see. I'd really rather see Edwards in this race. Maybe Kerry will just do everyone a favor and have a massive coronary.

So, in other words, Clinton paid no price for doing what was right.




Edwards is done. He can't catch Kerry.

I think it's really sad when a politician like Bush announces a law (or in this case, a change to the constitution) just to secure themselves more power or a longer term in office (like you just said - it's a move that will energise his main electoral base). It spells "corrupt" to me. Unfortunately, pandering to populist bigotry seems as common in the US as it is in the UK.

From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong - my knowledge of US laws/constitution/politics process isn't great) if Bush changes the US constitution then it'll take another president to remove the ammendment to the consitution, not a decision in a court - or can a court rule that an ammendment to the constitution can be overturned?

Although I don't get to see as much US news as most of you do (since I'm in the UK) I have to agree with Lawson when he says that Edwards can't catch Kerry - or at least that's how it looks to me.

Don't mistake my political analysis with Bush's motivation. Bush is a very moral man, and is doing this because of the grave threat it poses to the institution of marriage. He also wants the rule of law upheld, as it is currently against federal law for gays to wed.


No, the Constitution can only be amended like this:

Thus, the President really has nothing to do with it, other than backing it.

The Amendment can later be overturned, as was Prohibition, by reversing the process through Congress. A President cannot reverse it himself.


Yes, the Democrats front loaded the process in order to have a nominee by Super Tuesday.

Thanks to Lawson for the explanations about the US constitution in his previous post.

OK, I probably disagree about Bush's morals/motivation, but I'd be grateful for an explanation of US law here:

The US constitution is the first tier.
Federal laws are the next level.
State laws are the next level.
City/County/whatever laws are below this.

is this right?

What happens if a state passes a law which contradicts federal law?
What happens if a city passes a law whcih contradicts state or federal law?

These aren't trick questions - I'm just interested in the light of the current topic.

Federal laws are based on the US Constitution.
Then State laws
Then local

If a State passes a law that violates Federal Law, then the agrieved party can sue in Federal court, as was done in Bush vs Florida, when Florida judges changed the election laws, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

If a city, like San Francisco, passes a law which violates state law, the those acts which violate the law will be null and void.

lawson please take the time to familiarize yourself with darkforums rules..... firstly please take note of this one..... it is part of the sticky thread on top of the Politics Forum..... I will let you beg off with ignorance on this one even though ignorance should not be an excuse....... please BE AWARE!!!!!!

"""First if you are posting an article it should have written commentary by you or it will be considered SPAM and you will be Formally Warned and the Thread deleted. By commentary I mean that you should post either a negative or positive view as to give the article a good jumping off point for discussion. So please remember this."""""

In the future please add commentary to a cut and pasted article even if it is a sentence or two to let others know why you posted it in the first place as well as to let them know your stance on the subject....

Thank you.....

No problem.