Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 19, 2003)
dflcamhaf 19. 2003 » fust SMt.ji news resident Bush might support a consti tutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage. But he stopped short of endorsing the Federal Mar riage Amendment, already intro duced in Kith houses of Congress, in a Dec. 16 interview with Diane Sawyer on the A B C pro gram PnmeTime. “If necessary, l will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman,” Bush said near the end of the interview. In other language sure to please his social conservative supporters, he said he believes the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court “over reached its Kiunds as a court. It did the job of the Legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made.” Bush left open the possibility of supporting the state option of civil unions for gays, a posi tion that Vice President Dick Cheney support ed during the 2000 campaign. And he expressed a states’ rights position in terms of marriage decisions, “except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage, in which case we may need a constitutional amendment.” When asked if the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was sufficient to protect marriage— as its principal author, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., has argued— Bush said, “ It may be undermined at this point.” He added, “The country be tolerant of people and understand people, but tolerance and K'lief in marriage aren’t mutually exclusive points of view.” Bush dodged the question of whether gays are sinners by saying, “We’re all sinners...and having said that, however, I do believe in the sanctity of marriage.. .but I don’t see that as con- P S eal of A pproval President Bush suggests support of constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage J j i j | by B o b R oeh r flict with being a tolerant person or an understand- ing person.” Bush’s responses in the interview were essentially the same ones he has con sistently given throughout the year when asked about gay marriage. He has stat ed his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that his administration is studying options to preserve that interpretation of marriage. The incremental change Bush expressed in this interview was in a President Bush says he would support an anti-gay amendment to greater uncertainty aKiut the U .S. Constitution “ if necessary,” a position he believes does not DOMA and in using the conflict with being a “ tolerant” person specific words “constitu tion into the U.S. Constitution,” said Winnie tional amendment” rather than the broader Stachelherg, political director of the Human concept of examining all options. However, he Rights Campaign. “To use this country’s most stopped well short of endorsing either the cherished document to strip away individual lib amendment that is before Congress, or even erty and freedom would be nothing short of a more restrictive language that would ban civil unions, which some social conservative extrem disgrace— with which the vast majority of the ists are considering proposing. American people disagree.” Log Cabin Republicans “has consistently Bush’s comments seemed to please no one. and clearly opposed any effort to write discrimi “ It’s never necessary— in fact it should be nation into the United States Constitution,” shameful— to insert prejudice and discrimina- executive director Patrick Guerriero said. He urged Bush “to avoid a divisive culture war that will only divide the American family." “President Bush continues to flirt with this anti-family amendment long after every Demo cratic candidate for president has condemned it,” said Dave Noble, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats. “This amend ment isn’t aKiut protecting marriage, it is aKiut prejudice.” Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt called on Bush “to end his alliance with bigotry once and for all and speak out against the Republican Party’s hostile election-year attempt to polarize the election.” He strongly opposes the amend ment “as purely political and unnecessarily divi sive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination.” However, he stopped short of calling for marriage equality for gays. “We consider this a declaration of war on gay America,” said Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director. “We cannot and will not K* silent in the face of this attempt to enshrine our community with second-class citizen ship in this nation’s most scared document.” The far right wasn’t exactly jumping up and down with glee, cither. Tony Perkins, executive director of the Family Research Council, said, “It sounds as though the administration would support civil unions, which are counterfeits of the institution of marriage.” Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative support er of same-sex marriage, offered an analysis on his blog, calling Bush’s comments “a carefully tai lored piece of obfuscation. It seems to me that, from this statement, we neither have an uncon ditional endorsement of the FMA nor an uncat- egorical defense of states’ rights with regard to marriage. Bush wants to have it Kith ways.” JH1
