President Bush decried ‘activist judges’ and came close to endorsing
a federal marriage amendment in this week’s State of the Union address.
(AP photo)
LGBT activists hail the choice of Biden for Obama’s running mate.
The lesbian activist and her longtime partner were the first couple to be married this summer in California.
advertisement
advertisement
|
By JOE CREA
Friday, January 23, 2004
President Bush came close during State of the Union address on Tuesday, Jan.
20, to endorsing a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual
couples, declaring that if “activist judges” continue to rewrite marriage law,
he will support traditional marriage through the “constitutional process.”
“A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. … Activist
judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard
for the will of the people and their elected representatives,” Bush said.
“On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard.
If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only
alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.”
The president made his remarks as the contentious debate over gay marriage
grew louder in Massachusetts, which could start issuing marriage licenses to
gay couples as early as May. The marriage issue is currently back before that
state’s highest court, which has been asked by legislators to clarify whether
its landmark ruling last November mandated marriage licenses for gay couples
or left room for Vermont-style civil unions.
As in past pronouncements, Bush stopped short of an outright endorsement of
an amendment, and he made no specific reference to the Federal Marriage Amendment
that has been introduced in both houses of Congress. The FMA would ban states
from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and has been interpreted by some
legal experts to also prohibit other forms of government recognition, including
civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The president’s past statements on the issue have been interpreted by some
as advocating a milder form of constitutional amendment, and only if the Defense
of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional. A number of congressional leaders,
including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have adopted that position.
If DOMA were added to the Constitution, states like Massachusetts would remain
free to issue marriage licenses but other states would be allowed to refuse
any legal recognition of those marriages.
Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national
gay Republican group, said that while LCR has supported the president on the
war on terrorism and tax cuts, the organization “will not stand with anyone
who is going to write discrimination into the Constitution.”
“Last night’s speech went beyond ambiguous and was as close to supporting
a constitutional amendment as you can get,” Guerriero said. “The single most
important priority of this organization is preventing such an amendment that
will marginalize gays and lesbians.
“The George Bush that was elected in 2000 was a uniter not a divider who wasn’t
going to pander to the far right. We didn’t agree with him on every issue,
but he stressed the need to focus on issues that would unite us. His speech
last night reflects a very different candidate for president,” he said.
Guerriero said that last night’s speech was a “significant step” in possibly “jeopardizing
the type of loyalty that LCR has shown,” putting into doubt a LCR endorsement
of Bush.
“We [gay Republicans] are here to stay but at a certain point, there’s a line
in the sand that must be drawn, and we cannot support anyone who wants to write
discrimination into the Constitution,” Guerriero said.
Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie told ABC on Sunday that if
gay marriage becomes a divisive issue during the presidential race, gay activists
will be to blame.
“If gay activists try to take the Massachusetts court ruling and nationalize
the government sanction of gay marriage, I suspect it will be an issue,” Gillespie
said.
Mark Shields, communications director for the Human Rights Campaign, said
that HRC has met with several leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
that all oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He declined
to mention specific names. He also noted that Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.) spoke out against the amendment and has said he is eager to defeat
it.
After Bush reached out to his social conservative base by discussing marriage
in the speech, Democrats had little to say about the hot-button issue. The
seven remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination took
issue with the president’s speech, but did not critique his support for a constitutional
amendment addressing gay marriage.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, North Carolina
Sen. John Edwards and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich all posted responses
to the speech on their campaign Web sites, but they skipped the gay marriage
issue.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the surprise winner of Monday’s Iowa caucuses,
was asked Tuesday night by ABC News about his vote in 1996 against the Defense
of Marriage Act, which the president praised in the State of the Union address.
Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the bill.
However, Kerry said that when it comes to gay marriage, “I have the same position
as the president.” Kerry has in the past said he does not support the Federal
Marriage Amendment.
 |
| The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins criticized
Bush for falling short of an outright endorsement of a constitutional amendment
in this week’s State of the Union address: ‘Now is the time, before the
court of Massachusetts imposes same-sex marriage on America, to protect
the sacred and irreplaceable institution of marriage.’ (Photo by Patrick
Dennis/AP) |
Neither Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman nor Rev. Al Sharpton of New York issued
any statements about the State of the Union on their campaign Web sites.
In the Democratic response to the speech, neither Daschle not House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), addressed gay marriage.
Social conservative groups have been pressuring the White House for months
to officially endorse a constitutional amendment that would federally define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Many religious conservatives
saw the president’s State of the Union speech as an opportunity for the president
to put some political muscle behind the proposed amendment.
While some of these groups praised the president’s remarks, others remained
disappointed by what they see as Bush’s continued failure to take a firm moral
stand on the issue.
Tony Perkins, executive director of the Family Research Council, condemned
the president’s failure to support a constitutional amendment in his regular
e-mail newsletter.
“Sixty-four days ago the Massachusetts State Supreme Court tossed a cultural
time bomb into the public square when they mandated the Legislature to create
homosexual marriages,” Perkins said. “Disappointingly, this evening in his
State of the Union address, President Bush promised to help the families of
America — after the bomb goes off and the damage is done. Now is the time,
before the court of Massachusetts imposes same-sex marriage on America, to
protect the sacred and irreplaceable institution of marriage.”
The Christian Coalition of America applauded the president’s speech for condemning “runaway
judges” legislating from the bench and urged Congress to pass the Federal Marriage
Amendment.
“It was an abomination that three left-wing Massachusetts judges — acting
as super legislators in robes — in their decision last year are attempting
to force Massachusetts legislators into approving homosexual marriage,” said
Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs. “We urge the House of Representatives
to pass this critical piece of legislation before this November’s election.”
Some legal experts said that Bush’s language is “getting closer and closer” to
officially endorsing a constitutional amendment on the marriage issue. The
State of the Union address is the third time in recent months that Bush has
stated an opinion on gay marriage.
University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, who testified against
the FMA before Congress last fall, said the president’s latest comments offer “enough
rhetorical wiggle room” to be considered something short of a full-fledged
endorsement. But Carpenter, who is a longtime gay Republican activist, said
it was likely the president would support some form of an amendment if Massachusetts
begins issuing marriage licenses.
“ I am mindful that we’re all
sinners. And I caution those who may try to take the
speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log
in their own. I think it’s very important for our society
to respect each individual, to welcome those with good
hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand,
that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise
on an issue such as marriage. And that’s really where
the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the
definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of
marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a
woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or
the other. And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best
way to do that.”
July 30, 2003, during a news conference
at the White House, after dissenting justices
in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence
vs. Texas warned the decision would lead
to gay marriage
“If necessary, I will support a constitutional
amendment which would honor marriage between a man and
a woman, codify that. … The position of this administration
is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make,
they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the
state or … start at the state level. Let me tell you, the
[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial] Court, I thought, overreached
its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature.
It was a very activist court in making the decision it
made. As you know, I’m a person who believes in judicial
restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the
place of the legislative branch. … Except and unless judicial
rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case,
we may need a constitutional amendment. … I do believe
in the sanctity of marriage. … But I don’t see that as
conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding
person.”
Dec. 16, 2003 in a televised interview
with ABC News from the White House
“A strong America must also value the
institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals
as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental,
enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has
already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense
of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That
statute protects marriage under federal law as the union
of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not
redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however,
have begun redefining marriage by court order, without
regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.
On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice
must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary
will upon the people, the only alternative left to the
people would be the constitutional process. Our nation
must defend the sanctity of marriage. The outcome of this
debate is important — and so is the way we conduct it.
The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches
that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.”
Jan. 20, 2004 in the State of the
Union address
|
|
|
“If we start seeing gay couples walk down the aisle in May, the president
will probably come down for some kind of amendment,” Carpenter said. “He might
support constitutionalizing DOMA just to protect states. So marriage would
stay in Massachusetts but not be exported through ‘activist federal judges.’ Another
compromise might be some law that says judges can’t impose marriages on a state
even using their own state constitution. That compromise would only allow state
legislators to adopt gay marriage.”
Each time in recent months that Bush has spoken out against gay marriage, he
has also reminded those who agree with him to remain respectful and tolerant
of gays.
“I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for
one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization,” Bush
said in Tuesday’s address.
Similarly, when asked about the issue by ABC News in a White House interview
last month, Bush said his opposition to gay marriage did not conflict “with
being a tolerant person or an understanding person.”
To Carpenter, the compassionate language fell flat. “In substance, what he
means is that we will deny you all the benefits of marriage but we will do
it in the nicest possible way,” Carpenter said.
Robin Tyler, executive director of the Equality Campaign and DontAmend.com,
also spoke critically of the president’s attempt to appear tolerant while nearly
endorsing an amendment.
“You can’t on one hand say we are going to deny you the right of marriage
forever and on the other hand say we must treat you well,” Tyler said. “You
can’t slap with one hand and pet with another. Dr. King always used to say ‘we
have to fear moderates’ for they are the ones who are ‘nice’ to us. Why are
we accepting his kind words when this is not a friendly administration?”
Other gay activists joined Tyler in angrily condemning the president’s remarks.
Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, a gay
partisan group, said he was “surprised that the president went as far as he
did” and said the speech “reflects the callous indifference that the president
harbors toward our families.”
Robin Tyler, executive director of Equality Campaign and DontAmend.com, said
Bush’s admonishment of “activist judges” constitutes an attempt to usurp the
U.S. court system.
“‘No matter how you rule, we will correct it,’ is what the president was really
saying,” Tyler said. “This government is disempowering the supreme court of
Massachusetts and ignoring our checks and balance system. Does this mean that
any time they disagree with state supreme courts they will go after them with
a constitutional amendment?”
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said it was “truly shocking
to see the president of the United States use the State of the Union as a forum
for intimidating judges and threatening the Constitution.”
“It goes back to the days of ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ and the resistance individuals
had to federal judges enforcing civil rights guarantees for all Americans,” Wolfson
said.
Wolfson said the president was unable to offer “a single good argument for
how denying marriage or cementing discrimination into the Constitution benefits
anyone.”
|
