Bush seeks marriage amendment
Calls Mass., S.F. same-sex actions a risk for nation
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, decrying moves toward gay marriage in Massachusetts and San Francisco, called on Congress yesterday to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Bush's election-year call for an amendment, made at the White House one day after his first overtly partisan speech of this campaign season, came after weeks of prodding by religious conservatives, a segment of the Republican Party the president has worked hard to please. The issue holds the prospect of serving as a high-profile point of contention between Bush and his Democratic rivals, who oppose same-sex marriage but also are against amending the Constitution to ban it.
"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. "Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
In calling for a constitutional amendment, Bush did not express opposition to states allowing gays to enter into civil unions, and he did not offer specific support for legislation introduced by Representative Marilyn N. Musgrave, a Colorado Republican whose bill would limit marriage to unions of men and women.
"The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," Bush said.
Some Democrats and gay rights advocates, however, view civil unions as akin to the separate-and-unequal status blacks were relegated to during segregation, and have sought to expand the opening created by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling and by the decision of San Francisco officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Gay rights advocates were angered by Bush's call for a constitutional amendment and predicted a bitter fight to make the typical climb to amend the Constitution even more steep.
"It's appalling that the president would use the weight of his office to do this," said David Tseng, president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a gay-rights advocacy group.
Bush's main Democratic rivals, Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, both blasted Bush's call for a constitutional amendment as divisive and unnecessary, especially given that a federal law passed in 1996 already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"I'm not surprised that the day after he kicked off his campaign, the president is already talking about gay marriage," Edwards said. "Instead of offering new ideas to help the families who are actually married, President Bush wants to play politics with the Constitution."
Kerry said: "While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years this has been a state issue. I oppose this election-year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor."
Noting that most amendments to the Constitution ensure rights or prohibit discrimination, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on the Senate floor that Bush "will go down in history as the first president to try to write bias back into the Constitution."
Conservative groups, frustrated by Bush's silence as news broadcasts were filled with images of gay couples standing in line to get marriage licenses in San Francisco, were thrilled by his remarks.
"The president was right on target when he said activist courts have left the American people no other recourse," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group. "The president was right to say enough is enough."
A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken last month suggested that 53 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and only 24 percent favor allowing gay couples to marry. In Massachusetts, a Boston Globe poll suggested that opposition to gay marriage has increased by 10 percent since late November, when the SJC ruled to legalize same-sex marriage. That poll, conducted last week, indicated that 53 percent opposed legalizing gay marriage, while only 35 percent supported allowing same-sex couples to marry.
But despite broad public opposition to same-sex marriage, amending the Constitution to define gay marriage as the union of a man and a woman will be difficult. Both houses of Congress are almost evenly split along partisan lines, and legislation to amend the Constitution would require a two-thirds' vote in both the House and the Senate. Then, 38 state legislatures would have to ratify the amendment.
Conservatives in Congress have already expressed wariness about amending a Constitution that has been altered only 27 times since its ratification in 1788. Moderates prefer to stand behind the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate.
But Bush warned that the '96 law might 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," the president said.
Gay rights advocates and their allies in Congress said they fail to see how allowing gays to marry threatens marriages between men and women.
"Nothing about traditional marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton.
Frank, who is gay, said the president made his call for a constitutional amendment simply to satisfy conservatives in his party when he is struggling to explain the loss of American jobs. "He's really not been having a good time of it recently," Frank said. 