HOME                  

Blogs
Bookstore
Commentators
Documents
Links

Mega Links!
News
Newspapers
Political
States
Topical
Useful Info  
Web Cams & Scanners
My Daily Reading


National Strategy for
   Victory in Iraq 


  Democrats' Plan:
  Retreat & Defeat

Who said what...
About WMDs
About Plamegate


ABC News
BBC News
Boston Globe
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
CNN.com
Los Angeles Times
MSNBC
New York Times
NPR
PBS
Washington Post

News Aggregates 
Alta Vista News
Breitbart.com
   (AP) (Reuters)
Google News
Myway.com
Netscape News
Newseum.org
Yahoo! News

Wire Services
Associated Press
: : :
Business
: : : MyWay Feed
: : : National
: : : Politics
: : : Raw News
: : : United States
: : : World 
Reuters
UPI

Video Blogging
The Political Teen

2004 Election
George Bush
Dem Debates
John Kerry
Kerry Chronology

ARCHIVES
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005

September 2005

August 2005
June 2005
Old Site

  

 


George W. Bush
Speech - Call for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
Roosevelt Room, White House, Washington, D.C. 

February 24, 2004


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

 The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

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. 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, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. 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. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. 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 amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. 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.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Thank you very much.

END 10:48 A.M. EST
 

NEWxMEDIAxxxx

TALK 
Glenn Beck
Bill Bennett
Monica Crowley
Jerry Doyle
Mike Gallagher
Michael Graham
Sean Hannity
Paul Harvey
Hugh Hewitt
Laura Ingraham
Rollye James
G. Gordon Liddy
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Medved
Bill O'Reilly
Dennis Prager
Michael Reagan
Michael Savage
Laura Schlessinger
     ( more . . . )

NEWS
CNS News
Drudge Report
FOX News
FrontPage Magazine
NewsMax.com
Opinion Journal
Washington Times
World Net Daily

BIAS / WATCH
Accuracy in Media
BBC Watch
Biased BBC
Boycott CBS
C.M.P.A.
Chron Watch
CAMERA
Eye on the Post
F.A.I.R.
Honest Reporting
Media Research Center
NewsBusters.org
NewsMax: Media Bias
Oh, That Liberal Media
Rather Biased

Tampa Bay Primer
Texas Media Watch
Times Watch
>>Articles Archive

COMMENTARY
Mona Charen
Ann Coulter
Victor Davis Hanson
Michelle Malkin

Walter E. Williams

BLOGS
Backspin
BareNucklePolitics
Boing Boing
Captain's Quarters
DiscoverTheNetworks
Eschaton
Free Republic
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
David Limbaugh
Little Green Footballs
Lucianne.com
Mudville Gazette
NRO Media Blog
Outside the Beltway
Political Wire
Power Line

Radio Blogger
RedState.org
Stop the ACLU
Talking Points Memo
James Taranto
Unpartisan.com
Volokh Conspiracy

SELECTED
RESOURCES

Congressional Record
Cong Comm Reports
Global Legal Info Net
Government Resources
Roll Call Votes
U.S. Bills / Resolutions
U.S. Code
U.S. House
U.S. Nominations
U.S. Senate
U.S. Treaties
                     

 

seanrobins.com is copyright © 1999-2005 by sean robins, all rights reserved
You are visitor no.
   Comments