Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Backs Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage
NewsMax.com ^ | 2-24-04 | NewsMax Wires, AP

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."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; bush; civilunion; constitution; fma; gaymarriage; homosexual; marriage; marriageamendment; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
I watched the live speech and I was thrilled to hear of the proposal of an amendment. I am sick, as may of us are, of liberal judges and activist minorities trying to run our lives! Most people are opposed to gay marriage-so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us?
1 posted on 02/24/2004 12:36:02 PM PST by Mich0127
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
BUMP
2 posted on 02/24/2004 12:36:49 PM PST by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
IMO, the amendment has about as much chance of being ratified as the ERA did, maybe less.
3 posted on 02/24/2004 12:46:35 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: templar
I think it does have a chance. I think conservatives are fed up.


http://W-04.com

4 posted on 02/24/2004 12:53:57 PM PST by W04Man (Bush2004 Grassroots Campaign visit W-04.com for FREE STICKERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
... so why should a tyrannical minority impose their beliefs on us?

They shouldn't, and the people should not tolerate such action from a judge. Guess a substantial number of people are willing to keep the defective judges, and just institute a new piece of text in the Constitution.

To draw a workplace analogy, at some point it's better to fire a defective worker than it is to institute another workplace rule.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with the object here. I'll take action whichever way it comes, but prefer to dump the judges.

5 posted on 02/24/2004 12:54:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Why can't we conservatives raise a "hissey-fit" like these gay activists do??? Why can't we "come out" and demonstrate for hetrosexual relationships????

....JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY???
6 posted on 02/24/2004 1:00:19 PM PST by smiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: W04Man
I think conservatives are fed up.

Oh, I agree with that! I just don't there are enough conservatives left to make a whole lot of difference.

7 posted on 02/24/2004 1:01:58 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: W04Man
Ignor the disinformation. the DOMA passed with HUGE numbers. 38 states ahve DOMA and two more are working towards constitutional DOMAs

The HRC is desperate against FMA.

This will pass. It will be worth seeing kerry vote against marriage.
8 posted on 02/24/2004 1:05:12 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
I'll ask you all again...

Bush favors civil unions. If we pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and yet give all the same benefits to sodomites under the name of "civil unions" what have we gained exactly?

No gay marriage.

No gay civil unions.
9 posted on 02/24/2004 1:08:01 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W04Man; All
This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
These members count the letters of support.

There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.

These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes Internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.

This is very doable.

Chairman Sensenbrenner's Photo

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

107th Congress Flag

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

Subcommittee Members

 

Subcommittee on the Constitution

Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman

362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney  
Mr. Forbes  

 

BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL

Committee on the Judiciary image- panel 1  
Frequently Asked Questions Site Map
Smooth right corner image
Committee on the Judiciary- Panel 2
HOME > MEMBERS
top of navigation bar

Members
Subcommittees

Hearings

Nominations Business Meetings Press Information

bottom of navigation bar
Orrin G. Hatch
CHAIRMAN, UTAH
Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter
PENNSYLVANIA
Jon Kyl
ARIZONA
Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN
Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA
Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA
Saxby Chambliss
GEORGIA
John Edwards
NORTH CAROLINA
smooth lower right corner image
Smooth left corner image

 BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26

Dear [ Decision Maker ]

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.

This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]


10 posted on 02/24/2004 1:09:05 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smiley
"Why can't we conservatives raise a "hissey-fit" like these gay activists do??? Why can't we "come out" and demonstrate for hetrosexual relationships????"

That's a good question that I have also asked.
Maybe because we have real jobs. Activists drive social change, no doubt about that. Vocal minorities beat silent majorities. If we want our country back we are going to have to become active.
11 posted on 02/24/2004 1:13:10 PM PST by BadAndy (Investigate Kerry's medals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
Does the Amendment actually "BAN" Gay Marriage, or does it just say that if a particular state recognizes Gay Marriage the Federal Government will not, and that other States are not obligated to recognize it?

I think that is a huge distinction that needs to be made.

Every network (FOX included) has their banners reading that the President wants to ban Gay Marriage, yet from what I understand the Federal Government as of today doesn't perform marriage ceremonies, all they do is recognize them.

I am all for an Amendment that protects States Rights in this manner, but I don't think that is the message that is getting out. By saying that the Federal Government wants to ban Gay Marriages, instead of not recognizing Gay Marriage I think you are then denying rights, not expanding States Rights. Shouldn't there be a distinction?

12 posted on 02/24/2004 1:13:42 PM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
It's not enough!!! Bush is still a RINO! We need to elect a Democrat because Bush has not done everything conservatively enough to ostracize the middle of the road voters! I don't care about what best for the country overall and in the long run I only care about me and now!. . . .


< Do I really need to add a sarcasm tag here? >
13 posted on 02/24/2004 1:16:23 PM PST by Tempest (Sigh.. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codercpc
Do not underestimate the power of Federal denial. This is not only important for taxes but important for immigration.

There will be 53 different civil union laws. (purto rico,guam,dc) Some will be open to same sex couples some will only be for homosexuals.

It will also allow this AS A STATE ISSUE to point out that homosexuals have equal right to engage in cohabitation agreements. They have always had this same right. There will be no need for civil unions.

This has reached the tipping point. Next issue, curing/treating homosexuality as a pathology.
14 posted on 02/24/2004 1:18:52 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
thanks for the wonderful letter. I will send it out and pass it on!
15 posted on 02/24/2004 1:32:12 PM PST by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127
Most amendments are either involve government procedural issues or the guarantee or expansion of rights of the people. Those that affect a group of Americans negatively or prohibit them from engaging in certain acts are generally considered to be the worst -- the 16th and 18th.

I don't really care much about the issue since a couple of gays marrying doesn't affect me, but I do have a general problem with an amendment that is restrictive to the population. It's like with flag burning, where I strongly advocate beating the crap out of a flag burner, but won't advocate a restrictive amendment to ban it.

16 posted on 02/24/2004 1:39:42 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy
To answer your question, we can't raise hissy fits because it is not politically correct. We have to step around them on eggshells and worry that we might, oh no, offend someone.

These people need to understand that they made a conscious choice to have homosexual relations. So, deal with the fact that society does not want to look the other way and let you prance around, calling yourself married, and accept it!
17 posted on 02/24/2004 1:40:16 PM PST by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I think we at least need the threat of an amendment. The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

Do I think the amendment will pass though: likely not. The last amendment imposing negative liberty was the Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. However, we need to send a message across, and if an amendment or the threat of one will do the trick, so be it. Something needs to be done. We have to draw a line and protect the sanctity of marriage. Because if gay marriages are allowed, then we run into a slippery slope. Who is to say that a person can't marry their pet, their tree, their house, or even themselves? These justices are making a mockery of tradition and morality and a line must be drawn!
18 posted on 02/24/2004 1:47:14 PM PST by Mich0127 (Massachusetts: the land of the pathetic..namely Kerry and Kennedy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: templar
I followed with care, as a constitutional lawyer, the fate of the ERA. I think, however, the better example is the Madison Amendment that was ratified in 1992, almost two centuries after then-Congressman James Madison wrote it as the second of the 17 original articles of the Bill of Rights. If the marriage gets out of the Senate (and that is the sticking point), I believe it will be promptly ratified by the states.

If the Marriage Amendment does not pass the Senate in this Session of Congress, I expect that it WILL pass the Senate in the next Session, after the membership of that body has changed.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

19 posted on 02/24/2004 1:55:45 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: codercpc
The reason that this issue cannot be a "states rights" matter, is this: The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution requires EVERY state to recognize the official acts of other states. Therefore, if Massachusetts and the City of San Francisco (there's a "state" with "rights" for you) turn out married homosexuals, those couples can go to every other state and demand recognition as a married couple, because the US Constitution says so.

States can have their own motor vehicle codes. The law changes for the motorist when he crosses the line. But states cannot have their own laws on marriage, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Does that make sense to you?

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

20 posted on 02/24/2004 2:02:59 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson