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