Bush Calls for Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

February 24, 2004

President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith, Bush said.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

The president said he decided to endorse an amendment because of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision granting marriage rights to same-sex couples, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision two weeks ago to begin giving marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

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, Bush said. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. [transcript]

Bush has been under pressure from social conservatives within his political base to come out in favor of such an amendment, several versions of which are floating around Capitol Hill.

Until Tuesday, Bush had only suggested he was open to an amendment, but stopped short of calling for one.

He did not sign onto a specific bill, but called on Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

But amending the Constitution is difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority each in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 states. Besides the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in 215 years, most recently in 1992.

John Feehery, a spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, said House Republican leaders would be hard-pressed to round up the 291 votes needed to pass an amendment.

Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, said the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the measure next week. Asked if it has the 67 votes needed to pass the Senate, she said, It'll be close.

Bush's comments were swiftly condemned by Democratic Party leaders as an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution and by a gay civil rights group as gay bashing.

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, Bush said.

Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define legal arrangements other than marriage, suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage, he said. There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities.

That position did not sit well with some social conservatives, who want an amendment that would prevent states from recognizing both same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Gay group calls act 'desperate'

It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy, said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement.

Sen. John Kerry's campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the announcement makes it clear that Bush's re-election strategy is to use wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation.

Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays and lesbians but that he opposes marriage for them. He also said he believes the matter should be an issue for the states.

The leader of the nation's largest gay and lesbian political organization called Bush's support for such an amendment a desperate attempt to help his re-election bid and accused him of wanting to bash gay and lesbian families.

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said such an amendment would have broader ramifications than the ones Bush described.

Leading constitutional law scholars have come out and said that what the president is supporting ... would indeed strike at the heart of any state's ability to pass domestic partnership benefits [and] civil unions, Jacques said.

A call for civil debate

Bush called for a civil debate on the controversial issue.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger, he said. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

But Bush said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and laws banning same-sex marriage in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and allows states to ignore same-sex licenses from outside their borders.

There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts, Bush said.

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.

The following is a transcript of the president's remarks:

BUSH: Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, 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, 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.

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 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, 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 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.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to 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 amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.