WASHINGTON -— Adding
to the fierce and polarizing debate over the legality of gay marriage,
President Bush announced his support Feb. 24 for a constitutional
amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
“Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and
to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution
defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as
husband and wife,” the president said in remarks from the
White House’s Roosevelt Room. “The amendment should
fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free
to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other
than marriage.”
The president’s statement was immediately cheered by conservative
Christian groups, who had been growing impatient for such a stand
from the White House, and condemned by supporters of marriage
rights for same-sex couples.
Bush said this kind of action is necessary in light of plans
by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to recognize gay marriages
in May and the recent issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples in San Francisco and New Mexico.
“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,” the president said in a
five-minute speech.
“Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious
and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.”
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian political organization,
said Bush’s stand will further divide the country and trigger
a lengthy political debate.
“To use the Constitution to discriminate against our families
is un-American, shameful and divisive,” said Cheryl Jacques,
president of the Washington-based organization.
“Constitutional amendments have historically served to
expand liberty and equality — such as giving women the right
to vote. This amendment would be the first to reinstate discrimination
in our Constitution.”
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research
Council, welcomed Bush’s remarks and pledged to work for
the passage of an amendment by Congress.
“The president was right on target when he said activist
courts have left the American people no other recourse,”
said Perkins, who is based in Washington. “The president
was right to say enough is enough.”
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, said Bush’s action will
cause divisions within the religious community.
“President Bush is just wrong,” said Lynn, whose
watchdog group is based in Washington. “A growing number
of religious groups perform marriages for same-sex couples. Bush’s
proposal gives some religious traditions favored treatment.”
Representatives of religious groups in which some congregations
are involved with blessing same-sex unions said such ceremonies
likely will continue, with or without a constitutional amendment.
The Rev. William Sinkford, president of the Boston-based Unitarian
Universalist Association, considers such an amendment to be “an
extreme and inappropriate act,” but he doesn’t think
it would prevent his faith group from continuing its tradition
of holding “services of union” for same-sex couples.
“Our congregations, I expect, and our ministers would
continue to perform ceremonies of union even if the amendment
were to pass,” he said. “It is not the role of the
state — thankfully, because of the separation of church
and state — to dictate to any religious community what its
doctrines and practices must be.”
The Rev. Lois Powell, team leader in Justice and Witness Ministries
of the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ, said while churches
may continue to offer services blessing a same-sex union, clergy
may choose to be sacred rather than state representatives.
“I will think twice now before signing a marriage license
as pastor because I don’t think it’s the role of the
church to function as an agent of the state,” she said.
Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Washington-based Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism, said he thinks the focus on a
possible amendment will lead to stronger support for religious
commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples in Reform Jewish
circles.
“If it passed, then it might stifle some and lead others
to be more assertive,” he predicted. “I’m confident
this is not going to pass. ... I think there are a significant
number of Americans who are becoming almost day by day ... more
tolerant of gay rights and more understanding of the desire of
gays and lesbians to live out their lives with the same legal
opportunities of other people.”
Aware of the range of opinions on this controversial issue, Bush
called for a civil debate.
“Our government should respect every person and protect
the institution of marriage,” he concluded. “There
is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should
also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country,
without bitterness or anger.” |
