President Bush's Statement on FMA

Tue Feb 24 12:07:07 PST 2004

For whatever it's worth, here is the full text of the President's statement
calling for passage of a constitutional amendment.

JHA

-------
Jonathan H. Adler
Assistant Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106
ph) 216-368-2535
jha5 at cwru.edu

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                           February 24, 2004

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

The Roosevelt Room

10:43 A.M. EST

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20040224/1246d07a/attachment.htm