WASHINGTON (ABP) — Ending months of silence and under increasing pressure, President Bush announced Feb. 24 that he will support an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
However, he did not say if he would go so far as to support a measure that also outlaws marriage-like arrangements for same-sex couples nationwide — something some of his most conservative supporters favor.
“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, in brief comments from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
“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 continued.
Bush said recent actions of “activist judges” as well as some local officials had made support for an amendment necessary. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that the state's constitution required it to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The same court recently reaffirmed that decision.
On Feb. 12, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) ordered municipal officials to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 3,000 have been married since then. Officials in Sandoval County, N.M., soon followed suit.
Because of these developments, Bush has been under mounting pressure from many religious conservatives to support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. They view the amendment as the only remedy to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.
While most polls show that a large majority of Americans oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, barely a majority support an amendment to outlaw it. Polls also suggest that the question is of far less importance to most voters than the economy, national security and other issues.
Reaction to Bush's announcement was swift — and reflective of society's polarization on the issue.
Conservative religious leaders applauded the president's announcement and agreed any other remedy is inadequate.
“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, in a press release. “Nothing short of an amendment will protect the institution of marriage from an out-of-control judiciary.”
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Bush “has now properly concluded that we have 'reached the last resort' in preserving the sanctity of marriage.” Citing a survey that suggests 70 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, Land said, “The only way the American people can make their voice heard on this issue is to avail themselves of the mechanism provided by the founding fathers, namely amending the United States Constitution.”
But more liberal Christian leaders showed their displeasure with equal fervor.
“It's disturbing that our president would be willing to write discrimination into the Constitution of the United States,” Laura Montgomery Rutt, spokesperson for the religious gay-rights group Soulforce, told an ABP reporter. “We believe that the majority of fair-minded Americans — religious leaders and people of faith — do not support” amending the Constitution for such a purpose.
Rutt said the president's support for banning gay marriage is a church-state issue, because “Bush is supporting one religion's view of marriage and putting it into a government document.” Because of that view, she said, “You don't have to be in favor of gay marriage to oppose the amendment.”
Stan Hastey, a progressive Baptist leader and constitutional scholar, agreed. “[M]y view is the Constitution should be amended only in the most extreme of circumstances when there is a national consensus that is clearly settled,” he told ABP.
“Usually when hot button issues like this come along, it is very rare when the Constitution has been amended quickly that there has been a good result,” said Hastey, executive director of the Alliance of Baptists, a progressive organization based in Washington. He cited Prohibition as an example of a constitutional amendment that caused more harm than good.
Hastey noted he was speaking for himself and not the Alliance, which has taken a position against the “unjust treatment of same-sex couples” in church and society but has not specifically addressed the issue of gay marriage.
Bush said that all major religions affirm marriage as between a man and a woman. However, Rutt pointed out, several denominations and local congregations have supported same-sex marriage for years. Conversely, she added, many religious groups around the world have long viewed marriage as between one man and multiple wives.
Although Bush announced that he supported an amendment banning gay marriage, he also was careful to note that any such amendment “should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.” This would allow states to create legal arrangements for same-sex couples — such as civil unions — that grant most or all of the same benefits as marriage while reserving the term “marriage” itself for heterosexual unions.
Bush also did not mention the Federal Marriage Amendment by name in his Feb. 24 comments. Currently assigned to committees in both houses of Congress, it would ban both gay marriage and “the legal incidents thereof” nationwide. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) predicted the House could vote on the amendment by the end of the year.
Many of the FMA's supporters have said the amendment would only prevent courts from forcing same-sex marriage on states. However, most of its opponents and many mainstream legal scholars argue that its language is ambiguous enough to ban civil unions and even overturn many domestic-partnership rights that states and municipalities have long granted to same-sex couples.
Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he would favor a constitutional amendment to protect marriage if it allows for civil unions and attendant legal rights.
-30-