President Bush uttered words today that pro-family activists have been waiting months to hear, declaring unequivocally that Congress must pass — and states must ratify — an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"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 a nationally televised address from the White House. "Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with 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.
"Decisive and democratic action is needed," Bush added, "because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
The president specifically cited the recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordering lawmakers to include homosexuals under that state's marriage laws, as well as unilateral actions by officials in San Francisco and New Mexico to issue gay "marriage" licenses. In San Francisco alone, employees have performed civil nuptials for more than 3,200 homosexual couples — despite a state law defining marriage in traditional terms.
Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, the group that first proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), was pleased but not surprised by the president's announcement.
"Today is a great day for democracy in the United States, because the president has declared his support for allowing the American people — not judges — to determine the future of marriage for our children and grandchildren," Daniels, who attended the White House event, told CitizenLink.
"I know from personal experience that the president himself feels deeply what most Americans think and believe — that marriage is essentially and uniquely the union of male and female; that the benefits for children and society specifically derive from the fact that the two halves of the human race come together in marriage to create an institution that cannot be mimicked or replaced by other things. That is the real driving engine behind today's announcement."
Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson called Bush's statement "the lynchpin in efforts to protect marriage in our country."
"The president clearly understands that families formed through the union of one man and one woman are best for America and America's children," Dobson said. "His comments should signal to Congress and the states that only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can adequately address the inevitable showdown between the courts and the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was equally supportive.
"The president was right on target when he said activist courts have left the American people no other recourse," he said. "The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was the starting gun for the marathon to protect the historical and traditional definition of marriage. The president was right to say enough is enough."
'Legal arrangements other than marriage'
While Bush said that any federal marriage amendment should "fully protect marriage," he added it should leave state legislatures "free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." After the president's announcement, White House spokesman Scott McClellan clarified the issue by saying those "legal arrangements" could include everything from hospital visitation rights and insurance benefits for domestic partners to civil unions.
"Clearly, we believe that civil unions are counterfeit institutions of marriage, and we will work in every state to prevent those from taking place," Perkins told CitizenLink. "But I do agree with the president that that is a debate that should be left to the states."
Meanwhile, federal lawmakers working to protect marriage hope the president's endorsement translates into votes in both houses of Congress. U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., the chief House sponsor of the FMA, said she was pleased that the president put his stamp of approval on the bill.
"I am very glad that the president has put his weight behind this, and I think it is going to cause Congress to act quickly," Musgrave told CitizenLink. "Clearly, the things going on in Massachusetts and in San Francisco indicate the urgency of this, and I believe Congress will act soon."
U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a pro-family leader in the Senate, said the president's support may well help gain the two-thirds majority needed in both the House and Senate for a marriage-protection amendment to pass.
"We do not have (the necessary votes) today," Brownback said, "but that does not mean that we cannot get them."
Bush's comments were also welcomed in those states where the battle to defend traditional marriage is fiercest. Massachusetts Family Institute President Ron Crews said the president's remarks might help efforts to protect marriage when the Massachusetts Legislature reconvenes March 11, to again consider proposals for a state constitutional amendment.
"We basically need two or three legislators to come over to our side," Crews explained, "and we're hoping the president's action today will be an impetus to encourage that, particularly Republican legislators."
Crews agreed that whether civil unions are extended to homosexual couples should be up to the states.
"We have said all along that the issue of civil unions is a separate issue for debate on another day," he said. "We've been encouraging our legislators to send an amendment to the people to protect marriage, and then let's debate the whole issue of civil unions on another day."
Crews said he is not surprised that homosexual activist groups are already labeling the president's action as "discriminatory." That is the same tactic they've tried to use in the Massachusetts debate.
"This has now become the new mantra," Crews said. "What they fail to realize, or choose not to, is that states through the centuries have set protections around the word 'marriage' — protections like saying brothers can't marry sisters, that first cousins can't marry.
"That's protection, not discrimination."
Golden State showdown
In California, meanwhile, pro-marriage activists welcomed the president's support for a federal marriage amendment.
"Fewer and fewer people across the country are willing to promote 'marriages' between homosexuals; that is certainly true in California," said Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council (CFC).
Indeed, he added, the battle over gay "marriage" is intensifying in the Golden State. Conservative groups have sued the city of San Francisco, though two state judges have thus far declined to immediately halt the gay-wedding machine. The next hearing in those cases isn't scheduled until late March.
What's more, while San Francisco officials have filed their own lawsuit, arguing that California's prohibitions on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has indicated he plans to go directly to the state Supreme Court in an attempt to resolve the issue.
But Prentice also said, in something of a counterattack, representatives from CFC were today presenting a formal complaint to the California Assembly's Ethics Committee, asking it to censure state Assemblyman Mark Leno, an openly homoseuxal assemblyman who represents San Francisco.
"We believe Leno has willfully disregarded his oath of office," Prentice told CitizenLink. "In his own press releases, the assemblyman talks about the pride he felt in having personally officiated in over 100 homosexual 'marriage' ceremonies in the last few weeks in San Francisco."
In the end, the good news for the nation seems to be that, while it may take years, the issue may eventually be left up to the American people — through grass-roots efforts in the states, three-quarters of which must vote to ratify an amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. According to a recent nationwide CNN poll, by a margin of 64-32 percent, Americans think gay "marriages" should not be recognized in law as valid.
On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay "marriages," while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.
For Sen. Brownback, the battle in Congress will parallel the battle across America.
"Because of activist judges, we're getting this forced upon us and the only recourse that can withstand the courts is a constitutional amendment," he said. "That is a very unfortunate situation, but it happens to be the situation we're in now."
TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION
Let President Bush — and your congressman and U.S. senators — know that you support the Federal Marriage Amendment, too. To compose one e-mail you can send to all your elected federal officials, visit the CitizenLink Action Center.
You can learn more about the FMA by visiting our Stop Judicial Tyranny Web site.
And, to read the entire text of President Bush's address, click here.
