Post by Yaw on Feb 25, 2004 17:28:53 GMT -5
As a Constitutional Amendment. Article copied in below from the Toronto Star:
I have two words: Wedge Issue. In effect, this shows that Bush is so worried about his election prospects, he's willing to stoop to pushing a Constitutional Amendment that is blatantly discriminatory in order to shore up support among religious conservatives. It's nothing more than a shameful desperation move.
And for those reasons, it absolutely must not be successful.
Bush pushes gay-marriage ban
Urges Congress to pass amendment to constitution Opponents call move shameful,
discriminatory
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON—President George W. Bush, calling same-sex marriage a matter of "national concern,'' urged Congress to approve an amendment to the American constitution that would ban gays from heading to the altar.
In speaking out yesterday, the president was moving the emotionally volatile issue near the top of the agenda in this year's election campaign and was playing to his conservative, Christian base that was becoming impatient with his reticence after months of strides for gays and lesbians in this country.
Opponents said the president was seeking to become the first U.S. leader to enshrine discrimination in a constitution that stands for freedom. Gay and lesbian advocates labelled it an act of war against a minority population.
Bush called marriage between a man and a woman the "most fundamental institution of civilization."
A measure proposing the gay-marriage amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2003, by Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican. It stated in part that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Bush faced pressure from his core supporters to take action after what he called "activist judges'' in Massachusetts legalized gay marriage and the newly elected Democratic mayor of San Francisco ignored existing law, allowing 3,200 same-sex couples to wed in that city in recent days.
The U.S. constitution has been amended 27 times, but it can take years. An amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then must be ratified in three-quarters of the 50 states.
The president has no formal role in the amendment process and cannot veto proposed amendments or ratification, but may express an opinion.
While recent U.S. polling backs the Bush position that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he could be taking an election-year risk in proposing a change to the constitution because the country is largely split on whether the matter is of such of monumental importance that it requires such a move.
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,'' the president said in a brief White House statement.
"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.''
Bush raised the stakes in the debate on the eve of a Democratic primary in California where gay rights are dominating the news.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner for the nomination, said he endorses civil unions, not marriage, for gays, but said that issue should be left to the states.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution ... at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said. "(Bush) is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people."
John Edwards, the North Carolina senator who is still in the running for the Democratic nomination, said the matter must be decided by states, not by amending the constitution.
"Activist courts have left the people with one recourse,'' Bush said. "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.
"Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.''
Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate and one of the first to call for an amendment, said nothing would be done in a "knee-jerk'' fashion in Congress because of the importance of both marriage and the constitution.
But Rick Santorum, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania who once likened the legal right to consensual gay sex to the legal right to incest, bigamy, polygamy and adultery, said he would argue the amendment must pass the Senate this year.
"The breakdown of the family is something that we cannot afford in this country," Santorum said. "The society is not built to have a culture in which families don't exist. We can't afford it, economically or culturally or socially.''
Not all Republicans back Bush. The president's California campaign co-chair in 2000, influential Congressman David Drier, said he could not support a constitutional amendment.
People for the American Way, a lobby group that supports marriage equality, said a move to amend the constitution is "appalling and disgraceful."
"We must not rewrite the constitution to require treating one group of Americans differently than others,'' said Ralph G. Neas, president of the organization. The American Civil Liberties Union called the move un-American.
In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, having heard Bush oppose same-sex marriage in his January State of the Union address, gave city hall the okay to start issuing marriage licenses. A New Mexico county briefly followed suit. Yesterday, Newsom, 36, termed Bush's call for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage "shameful," Reuters reports.
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage under a Clinton-era law called the Defence of Marriage Act. But Bush said he had to act because a court someday could strike down that law.
Urges Congress to pass amendment to constitution Opponents call move shameful,
discriminatory
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON—President George W. Bush, calling same-sex marriage a matter of "national concern,'' urged Congress to approve an amendment to the American constitution that would ban gays from heading to the altar.
In speaking out yesterday, the president was moving the emotionally volatile issue near the top of the agenda in this year's election campaign and was playing to his conservative, Christian base that was becoming impatient with his reticence after months of strides for gays and lesbians in this country.
Opponents said the president was seeking to become the first U.S. leader to enshrine discrimination in a constitution that stands for freedom. Gay and lesbian advocates labelled it an act of war against a minority population.
Bush called marriage between a man and a woman the "most fundamental institution of civilization."
A measure proposing the gay-marriage amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2003, by Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican. It stated in part that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Bush faced pressure from his core supporters to take action after what he called "activist judges'' in Massachusetts legalized gay marriage and the newly elected Democratic mayor of San Francisco ignored existing law, allowing 3,200 same-sex couples to wed in that city in recent days.
The U.S. constitution has been amended 27 times, but it can take years. An amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then must be ratified in three-quarters of the 50 states.
The president has no formal role in the amendment process and cannot veto proposed amendments or ratification, but may express an opinion.
While recent U.S. polling backs the Bush position that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he could be taking an election-year risk in proposing a change to the constitution because the country is largely split on whether the matter is of such of monumental importance that it requires such a move.
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,'' the president said in a brief White House statement.
"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.''
Bush raised the stakes in the debate on the eve of a Democratic primary in California where gay rights are dominating the news.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner for the nomination, said he endorses civil unions, not marriage, for gays, but said that issue should be left to the states.
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution ... at the start of his re-election campaign," Kerry said. "(Bush) is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people."
John Edwards, the North Carolina senator who is still in the running for the Democratic nomination, said the matter must be decided by states, not by amending the constitution.
"Activist courts have left the people with one recourse,'' Bush said. "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.
"Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.''
Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate and one of the first to call for an amendment, said nothing would be done in a "knee-jerk'' fashion in Congress because of the importance of both marriage and the constitution.
But Rick Santorum, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania who once likened the legal right to consensual gay sex to the legal right to incest, bigamy, polygamy and adultery, said he would argue the amendment must pass the Senate this year.
"The breakdown of the family is something that we cannot afford in this country," Santorum said. "The society is not built to have a culture in which families don't exist. We can't afford it, economically or culturally or socially.''
Not all Republicans back Bush. The president's California campaign co-chair in 2000, influential Congressman David Drier, said he could not support a constitutional amendment.
People for the American Way, a lobby group that supports marriage equality, said a move to amend the constitution is "appalling and disgraceful."
"We must not rewrite the constitution to require treating one group of Americans differently than others,'' said Ralph G. Neas, president of the organization. The American Civil Liberties Union called the move un-American.
In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, having heard Bush oppose same-sex marriage in his January State of the Union address, gave city hall the okay to start issuing marriage licenses. A New Mexico county briefly followed suit. Yesterday, Newsom, 36, termed Bush's call for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage "shameful," Reuters reports.
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage under a Clinton-era law called the Defence of Marriage Act. But Bush said he had to act because a court someday could strike down that law.
I have two words: Wedge Issue. In effect, this shows that Bush is so worried about his election prospects, he's willing to stoop to pushing a Constitutional Amendment that is blatantly discriminatory in order to shore up support among religious conservatives. It's nothing more than a shameful desperation move.
And for those reasons, it absolutely must not be successful.