As a married guy, I don't feel threatened by gays getting married and this amendment does nothing to change my life. Therefore, I don't favor amending the Constitution. An amendment should affect everyone... illegal search and seizure, free press, fair trials, etc. This does not meet that standard and is clearly a politically calculated move on behalf of President Rove. ______________________ Bush Endorses Amendment Banning Gay Marriage The Associated Press Tuesday, February 24, 2004; 11:01 AM 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 find it hard to believe its 2004 sometimes after reading about Bush's agenda... this seems something that Puritan preachers would of pushed in the 18th C, not something that would be pushed by a President of the USA in the year 2004
This move really backs John Forbes Kerry into a corner. Will he finally take a real stance on the issue or continue his fence straddling?
This completely trivializes the Constitution. It may be shrewd politically, but it is further alienating Bush from more libertarian conservatives (such as myself.)
of course it's a political move rim, it's an election year! actually, i think the goings on in SF pushed Bush to get off the fence here. interesting to see how JFK reacts. "I don't need a coherent position, I served in Vietnam!" that said, i oppose the amendment. there's another version floating around that would amend the amendment so that it only bars the courts from making decisions that would alter the definition of marriage. in other words, it would ensure the issue were decided by the various state legislatures.
Actually part of the debate about the Musgrave amendment is that the language is written in such a way that it may prevent any civil-union type arrangements as well. There has been an interesting debate in TNR recently about the language of the second sentence, specifically the "or the legal incidents thereof" piece. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=levy021804 And here is Yale Law professor Jack Balkin on the language... http://balkin.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_balkin_archive.html#106944325583265936 "The Alliance for Marriage argues on their website that this language is designed to keep courts from imposing same sex marriage on the states, and to keep legislatures from passing laws authorizing same-sex marriage, but it does not prohibit state legislatures from passing laws creating civil unions for same-sex couples. I'm not so sure. The text is cleverly and confusingly written: The amendment says that no "state or federal law shall be construed to require" that "the legal incidents of" marriage may be enjoyed by same-sex couples. These legal incidents include a whole bundle of rights in family law, pension law, tort law, property law, and so on. What the text seems to say is that everyone who is sworn to uphold the law, including not only judges, but executive and administrative officials, would be prohibited from construing the law to give same sex couples this bundle of rights or any part of them. Since the law cannot be construed to do this, it cannot be enforced to this effect either. Private employers who give same sex couples benefits simlar to those of married couples would be able to do so, but they would not be permitted to construe any federal or state law as requiring them to do so, and no government official could enforce such an interpretation against private businesses. Thus, California's laws, which now give same sex couples many (but not all) of the same rights as married couples, and Vermont's civil unions law, which gives almost all of the same rights, would probably be made unenforceable by the Amendment's second sentence." There's more there too, it's interesting. I am curious what the lawyers on the board think about the language. Anyway, I heard Bush's announcement a little while ago in the car, and it just gave me that sinking feeling...This isn't the kind of fight we should be having right now. Aren't there more important things to worry about? It seems that there are plenty of important and legitimate debates about the future of the country and the directions we're headed. I'm curious, what do people think about amending the constitution? Regradless of your position on gay marriage/civil unions etc., do you think this is an issue which should be enshrined in our Constitution?
Great news for Kerry. Now instead of having to say that he favors gay marriage, he can just say that he opposes the idea of a consitutionally endorsed expression of intolerance. Too bad the party of 'small' government painted itself into a corner on this one. Hope Anita Perry keeps a lid on those divorce papers.
Why not ban interracial marriages as well? Peter: Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change.
Wouldn't this amendment be the first in our constitution that excluded a faction of our citizens from entitlements afforded to ALL Americans? SHAMEFUL! I'M A UNITER! NOT A DIVIDER!
I too am a married Heterosexual. But I hate seeing discriminat written added to the constitution. I'm not sure where I heard it, but someone said something to the affect of... The constitution is supposed to protect people's rights not take them away. The amendment is a horrible thing which discriminates against a segment of the population. Also this does nothing to force JFK to get off the fence. He's said that he is against amending the constitution, and therefore his stance is opposed to Bush's. Sadly Kerry doesn't endorse gay marriage but he's still a much preferable alternative to Bush on this issue.
I believe this is the case in Peru or some other Latin American country. What happens is people stop living with their first spouse and take up other unofficial spouses. But custody of children and property is a major headache.
Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves watching Shrub use the United States Constitution as an instrument of discrimination.
Can someone, ANYONE, please tell me why John Forbes Kerry will not come out and say he supports gay marriage? Please tell.
politically, because he doesn't have to. He doesn't want the negative that comes along with saying that. He's afraid to take a hard stand on the issue, which he should. That being said he's closer to being right on the issue, than Bush, which is another reason why he doesn't have to go that far.
I think I'll take Kerry over Bush any day of the week, and twice on days when posters from this site check out my profile on Match.com. Does George W. Bush support gays and lesbians adopting? Please tell. John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). How does George W. Bush feel about gays and lesbians serving in the Texas Air National Guard? Please tell. John Kerry opposed the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” He was one of a few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the President to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members. Where does George W. Bush stand on civil unions? Please tell. John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples. Anyone with half a brain would know that JFK is more of a friend to gays and lesbians than George W. Bush. My conscience cannot allow someone as bigoted as George W. Bush when it comes to homosexuals to lead our country for four more years. Italicized portions courtesy of http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/
