quote:
Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution
By DAVID STOUT
Published: February 24, 2004
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 "” President Bush said today he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, declaring that such a measure was the only way to protect the status of marriage between man and woman, which he called "the most fundamental institution of civilization."
In an announcement fraught with social, legal and political implications, Mr. Bush urged Congress to act on the amendment quickly and send it on to the state legislatures. Quick action is essential, he said, to bring clarity to the law and protect husband-and-wife marriages from a few "activist judges."
"The voice of the people must be heard," Mr. Bush said in a brief White House speech that Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, called an attempt to find "a wedge issue to divide the American people."
Two-thirds of each house of Congress would have to approve the proposed amendment. It would then have to be approved by at least three-fourths of the state legislatures, or 38, to become part of the Constitution. The process can take many months, even years, whether an amendment passes or not.
"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly," Mr. Bush said. "The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance."
Mr. Bush did not suggest specific wording for an amendment, but his remarks were immediately welcomed by his conservative backers, many of whom had been urging him to speak out, and denounced by gay-rights supporters.
"We are delighted the president has stepped forward on this issue and his announcement serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice, which describes itself as an international public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law.
But even though Mr. Bush insisted today that the amendment he favored would not undermine tolerance and respect for all individuals, his remarks were condemned.
"Not since the days of Jim Crow segregation has our nation faced the prospect of discrimination written into law in such a shameful way," said David Tseng, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "Millions of Americans are disappointed that their president, George W. Bush, has bowed to political pressure to support the codification of hatred into our beloved Constitution."
Pressure had been mounting on Mr. Bush to speak out, especially since the highest court in Massachusetts ruled recently that it was contrary to the state constitution to bar gay couples from marriage. The Massachusetts court held in part that civil unions, as opposed to full-fledged marriage, subjected gay couples to second-class status.
Soon after the Massachusetts ruling, the City of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses for gay couples. More 3,000 gay weddings have been performed even as opponents of the concept have gone to court to try to stop them.
The president had repeatedly described himself as deeply troubled by the developments in Massachusetts and California. Against such a backdrop of events, he said today, there is only one recourse.
"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," he 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."
Mr. Bush said an amendment was needed because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman, has been under siege, even though it was passed overwhelmingly by both houses and signed by President Bill Clinton. Moreover, Mr. Bush said, 38 states have so far passed laws similar to the federal statute.
Mr. Kerry was one of 14 senators to vote against the 1996 law "” a fact that is sure to be raised in the campaign, should he get the nomination.
"I believe President Bush is wrong," Mr. Kerry said today. "All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."
Mr. Kerry added: "While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the president of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed: jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world."
Mr. Bush was not specific today about the wording he would like to see Congress adopt in beginning the constitutional-amendment process. He did not, for instance, mention legislation proposed by Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado.
Mr. Bush said the amendment he envisioned "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," Mr. Bush said. "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."
Mr. Bush's announcement came less than a day after he effectively kicked off his re-election campaign with a speech to the Republican Governors Association, where he defended his own record and ridiculed Mr. Kerry as a fence-straddler on many issues.
The prospects for a constitutional amendment are by no means clear, especially in a year when many Washington lawmakers, along with their state counterparts, must run for re-election. But the depth of emotion and the seemingly unbridgeable gulfs of opinion on the issue became obvious in the hours after Mr. Bush's announcement.
"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be taken lightly, and is an extremely difficult endeavor, but it is now an essential step to preserve this fundamental building block of society," said Matthew Spalding, director of American Studies for the Heritage Foundation.
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, offered a similar opinion. "Call it same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership, it is all part of a carefully calculated campaign to provide the appearance of normalcy to homosexual behavior," Mr. Sheldon said. "It will be unmasked and defeated and President Bush's leadership on this issue will make the difference."
But Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "President Bush's endorsement of this mean-spirited amendment shows that he is neither compassionate nor concerned with the rights of all Americans."
Mr. Romero added: "Gays and lesbians are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. They serve as firefighters, police, doctors and professional athletes. They laugh at the same jokes and worry about car payments and credit card debt. Amending the Constitution to deny them the same rights we all take for granted just isn't very American."
Democrats were eager to criticize Mr. Bush.
"President Bush is tinkering with America's most sacred document in a shameful attempt to turn our attention away from his record as president," said Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "Since he can't run on his record of shipping jobs overseas, failing schools, and rising health care costs, he has to change the subject."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, "This nation has made too much progress in the ongoing battle for civil rights to take such an unjustified step backwards now."
And Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called the president's proposal "shameful."
"By stating his support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the president is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution, for the first time amending our sacred document to deny civil rights to a large number of Americans," Mr. Nadler said.
Nor was the reaction entirely along party lines.
"The amendment before Congress not only would define marriage, it would jeopardize civil unions and it would potentially even jeopardize domestic partnership legislation," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay party members. "You can't discuss tolerance and at the same time talk about writing discrimination into the Constitution. The president would have been better today discussing an attack on infidelity and divorce than on gay and lesbian families."
The president, perhaps tacitly acknowledging the emotion that has accompanied the debate over gay marriage, closed by saying: "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner 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."
A despicable election year trick, intended to drive a wedge between the queer community and our hetero neighbors. While depressing, this article is highly informative and I love the quoted reactions from DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, the ACLU and others. And though the Democratic presidential candidates are not THAT much better, at least they are against a constitutional amendment and Kerry can boast that he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.