Bush Backs Anti-Marriage Admendment (original) (raw)

Are we suprised? I'm not but I'm scared. My mom, who is the farthest left of the right wing, she says I shouldn't be scared. That nobody in their right mind would pass such a bill to take away rights. She says it's not their business anyway. That's why I'm scared, these people AREN'T in their right minds.

Bush Urges Congress to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 24, 2004; 11:30 AM

President Bush today urged Congress to send to the states a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages throughout the country.

His proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The president said he was acting in accord with the "overwhelming consensus" of Americans. The "voice of the people" must be heard, he said, in the face of "activist judges" and local officials who are allowing gay marriages.

The president has no formal role in the process of amending the Constitution, which is left to the Congress and the states with no requirement for a presidential signature.

Bush said his decision was prompted by the issuance of more than 3,000 licenses in San Francisco for same-sex marriages since the city began allowing the practice Feb. 13 and by an earlier ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declaring that state's ban on same sex marriage a violation of the state constitution.

"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," Bush said in an announcement in the White House Roosevelt Room.

"Today I call for the Congress to promptly pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife."

The states should be left free to construct institutions as alternatives to marriages, he said, but should not be permitted to redefine marriage itself.

There are two ways spelled out in the Constitution for amendments. Both have proven extremely difficult to achieve.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it requires the approval of three fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or in conventions. This is the route taken by all current amendments.

The second method is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states, and for that convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states. This route has never been taken.

The majority of states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and a coalition of conservative organizations has begun a push to amend the U.S. Constitution for a similar definition of marriage.

In San Francisco, more same sex marriages are expected even as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) Friday directed California's attorney general to take legal action to stop them as soon as possible.

Mayors in cities as large as Chicago and as small as Plattsburgh, N.Y., have said they have do not oppose marriage for same-sex couples. And gay couples have begun to test the laws about marriage and seek licenses.

Bush Urges Congress to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

"Unless action is taken," Bush said, "we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

"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. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

"On a matter of such importance," he said, "the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America," Bush said.

"Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

"Yet there is no assurance," he said, "that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

"Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

"For all these reasons," he said, "the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

"The union of a man and woman," the president said, "is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."