President Bush backs federal marriage amendment
Print This | Email This
Saturday June 3, 2006
President Bush backed a federal marriage amendment in his Saturday radio address, and announced plans to meet with religious leaders on Monday.
"Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society," said President Bush. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
"A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs," Bush explained. "Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America."
Although the constitutional amendment most likely won't have enough votes to pass the Senate, Bush is being criticized from both sides for his stance.
In a press release received by RAW STORY, the president of Human Rights Campaign, the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization in the country, blasted Bush's speech as un-American.
"President Roosevelt started these radio addresses to unite Americans and President Bush is using them as a tool to divide us as a nation," said HRC president Joe Somonese. "Itís wrong and itís un-American."
"The president should stop threatening to put discrimination in our Constitution and use valuable airtime as an opportunity to lay out an agenda to address the challenges facing our country," Somonese added. "President Bush is pandering to far-right extremists and making divisive, discriminatory politics his priority."
In an article in Saturday's edition of the L.A. Times, the president of the conservative Family Policy Network blasted the speeh as a "ruse" before the President even delivered it (link).
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," Joe Glover told the L.A Times. "We're not buying it."
"We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late," Glover added.
Transcript of Bush's radio address:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.